From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and
 anti-wraparound ru
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
 sawada.mshk@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sk@zsrv.org, nasbyj@amazon.com,
 andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <20190329140349.GI1954@paquier.xyz>
 <20190329142255.GA22447@alvherre.pgsql> <20190330010822.GL1954@paquier.xyz>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=andrew.dunstan@2ndQuadrant.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual;
 keydata=
 xsBNBE7KWFkBCAClridxur2AIc7eW2AR7izbfp3EnNefie2HbLF0izW5Ik5UjX2HBXBx4syI
 gY6b0ugohXrr274+baoAlvSbq6cAoQuEVrk5IZFzt20b1Xkx65FwGSEj526yiKLocqkJceSq
 Xr9xcA5SGY+FZv441chh5SU92v4q6z+6LPpoHOh97ptAVXZYNTtU0LevyvD5lja0TzbvJm6C
 eFXitJfnm1pLEr0DGJCR/iUOl/N62Kh4855zZC7NHIjQHPOvV5Stz/l5ilDhvGVk+xkXFPys
 SjZoUr1rXhYLpiyi5sR0X9FHXT0KnGuz1F5ERO7ZTLSSQ6fJwPj6gOk9K+vvoKvoeql5ABEB
 AAHNL0FuZHJldyBEdW5zdGFuIDxhbmRyZXcuZHVuc3RhbkAybmRRdWFkcmFudC5jb20+wsCY
 BBMBAgBCAhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUJDyV6hBYhBOQ+WEYd/Hy/RGkV
 pZn6f8tZ/DuBBQJcH/EVAhkBAAoJEJn6f8tZ/DuB7BEH/iDWZEbVft2m2MT6SPjARzTupt/l
 xLLZ/Cl6n2US2hov5+fBbnR5xvECk/YCOfG9ICvKNlpFjceqNLRKStd8cmndnI+kDw91uNM2
 hpL4aJMeW65XCHvqXlOLSwv5chBpXz9NG7FMaJ+q+59sWEWjcTNmjXgkEHn53y+1pc7nSLDe
 cr5ZI1aB3nGXRm1SoDY5PYZkUKMykW+YBZwgcs/Q5tRaE+siN7DKbz8E628+PerwAkmHPVXN
 MdJFD6gs4S0gDFA8IxcyIwZU2v4By+brzcJ9Se3FK5BYxBDHtaYZxgSrJAvOUOrLIZPQTQfL
 TtnVs3C3JTfrxCH1ceHtnA6dRuTOwE0ETspYWQEIANGc4zQULOxhbqO2dyD51YhqCNRmm9oK
 Waqf+wmW4tpDe/VVcxAnNizd4LWCHfzpb5cHAtGkOPePMfzWVf6nvdF7d3eglbtf59+zG7O7
 llV0xSSoFiieQBsrGvqDInXYX/4mRRXMtyhM353/tixC9RWLs1oofyYmCPPXXY7h9R7en3B8
 BoVrRFcdzlIY/NFNhFGW/9dkEiGjgna2Rk6e15kln4ZvFBWUg23p93w/pqXcxY6+k/8TEk+C
 4R+M6w7o2PLGOjdZ+kPiUcw5H85zf/yZJwQXzisXaNduwWB6Vads9YC9dj6kPR1c4VGRqAaY
 L++LAEOqrlvm2TvqQqZRtnEAEQEAAcLAZQQYAQIADwIbDAUCXA6fpAUJDyV6xAAKCRCZ+n/L
 Wfw7geU4B/9vFFsVmWxerDWgNjyiK80zIPmlw/iwdUlU6FIu0JWLMg4093kvxBs7RMZV9hBq
 n3ekBvD4IvFsVLJrw9qzSI2FH3UeYy5WXpEs01Ppia60NOlvRDqXbryzuvfe+iYo6bVP3Ikr
 TPTNYL/BePUTD2DPvSI82SbGTyzuA7SJv6NRqqQDMIy1fU6KyQFLmQJp/QJyhKWzm9jWh8ee
 w8jVaoMY0Kbq5N7RqisEx1Lu/Iw646UphdYzQNymf+kbiU5Kf4I6DhzV8w9sie1Bo1juNj3I
 c5/fFJsmxljbnaDbXPcnFsur1Oo9mIHFakgWgOBMuxoWfjONiLjjLh/9+ZIqSSLX
Message-ID: <3627b6eb-3bfc-ccb3-45e7-a0c96d23abb3@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:16:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190330010822.GL1954@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-MW
Precedence: bulk


On 3/29/19 9:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:22:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yeah, that looks good to me too.  I wonder if we really need it as LOG
>> though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the
>> min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time?
>> Maybe make it DEBUG1.
> I think that this does not justify a WARNING, as that's harmless for
> the user even if we use WARNING for other skips (see
> vacuum_is_relation_owner).  However DEBUG1 is also too low in my
> opinion as this log can be used as an indicator that autovacuum is too
> much aggressive because there are too many workers for example.  I
> have seen that matter in some CPU-bound environments.  I won't fight
> hard if the consensus is to use DEBUG1 though.  So, more opinions?
> Andrew perhaps?
>
>


It's really just a matter of housekeeping as I see it, so probably
DEBUG1 is right.


cheers


andrew


-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services