Larry Rosenman wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:28:21PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: >>> Since both vacuum and autovacuum will be cutting stats records, do >>> we want to just have the autovacuum >>> stats record have the fact that it was autovacuum that did the >>> vacuum? >>> >>> Or, is there a way when vacuum is run by autovacuum that I can get a >>> flag to set that says this (vacuum|analyze) was done by the >>> autovacuum daemon? >>> >>> I agree that the existing stats calls are good, but I'm still >>> reading code to see whether I can determine >>> at the time they are cut that this was autovacuum that did it. >> >> I think noting autovac vacuums/analyzes seperately is pg-dev/vacuum-time-patch-WIP.txt'nice-to-have' >> but not all that important. It'd probably be pretty easy to tell the >> difference just knowing what (if any) manual vacuums your system >> runs. >> >> While we're looking at logging, are you going to add stats stuff for >> the bgwriter as well, or should we add this to the TODO? > > I was going to do that after I got some comfort with what I'm doing > here.
I've put a WIP patch up for comments: http://www.lerctr.org/~ler/pg-dev/vacuum-time-patch-WIP.txt this is *NOT* for application, as I still need to add access to the new fields to the views, etc. I'm looking to get comments on it. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
