On 2014-10-20 19:18:31 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > In the meantime, I think it's worth adding this logging. If in fact this > basically never happens (the current assumption), it doesn't hurt anything. > If it turns out our assumption is wrong, then we'll actually be able to fin> > that out. :)
It does happen, and not infrequently. Just not enough pages to normally cause significant bloat. The most likely place where it happens is very small tables that all connections hit with a high frequency. Starting to issue high volume log spew for a nonexistant problem isn't helping. If you're super convinced this is urgent then add it as a *single* datapoint inside the existing messages. But I think there's loads of stuff in vacuum logging that are more important this. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
