Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> We could also store last_autovacuum_vacuum_duration - is that better
>>> or worse than start and end time?
>>
>> No, I think you want to know the actual time not only the duration.
> Well, y
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith wrote:
>>> What I actually want here is for the time that the last table autovacuum
>>> started, adding to the finish time currently exposed by pg_stat_user_tables.
>
>> Now, tha
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith wrote:
>> What I actually want here is for the time that the last table autovacuum
>> started, adding to the finish time currently exposed by pg_stat_user_tables.
> Now, that would be quite useful. That'd require another stats m
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
>> to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail
>> by default". Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a
>> speci
Tom Lane wrote:
So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail
by default". Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a
specific table, which we already do expose?
What I actually want
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 18:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With the current AV launch algorithm, unless you have very serious
>> system-wide issues there will be a worker launched into each database
>> approximately every autovacuum_naptime seconds. AFAICS this does not
>> tell
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 18:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
>>> to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail
>>> by default". Why w
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
>> to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail
>> by default". Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a
>> s
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
>> autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
>> was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
>> pg_stat_databas
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
> autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
> was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
> pg_stat_database.
> Was there any particular reason why this wasn't
Magnus Hagander escreveu:
> Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
> I've missed, making this a bad addition? :-)
>
Not that I know of. Good catch. ;)
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@po
I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
pg_stat_database.
Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
I've missed, ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
