On 12/18/14, 7:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.foo": index scans: 0
pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 pinned
tuples: 79415 removed, 513156 remain, 0 are dead but not yet
removable
buffer usage: 14532 hits, 6 misses, 6241 dirtied
avg read rate: 0.003 MB/s, avg write rate: 3.413 MB/s
system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.30u sec elapsed 14.28 sec
I.e. this just says how many pages were pinned, without saying what was done
about them. That's not very meaningful to an average DBA, but that's true
for many of the numbers printed in vacuum verbose.
That message is extremely confusing, to my eyes. If you want to say
"pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 skipped due to pins", that would
work for me, but just say "0 pinned" is totally wrong, because vacuum
pinned every page in the table.
We have to decide on a tradeoff here. Either we end up with two different log
messages (depending on scan_all) that require two different translations, or we
end up with a generic message that isn't as clear.
The best option I can think of for the later is something like "failed initial lock
attempt". That's the only thing that will be true in all cases.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
