From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:44:38 -0400
Message-ID: <10642.1216359878@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1216335729.19656.683.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
References: <1216227339.19656.364.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<20080717211044.GR3934@alvh.no-ip.org>
<1216335729.19656.683.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I don't like your wording though; it feels too verbose (and you're
>> losing the ANALYZE in case it's doing both things). How about
>>
>> snprintf(activity, MAX_AUTOVAC_ACTIV_LEN,
>> "autovacuum: VACUUM%s%s", vac
>> tab->at_doanalyze ? " ANALYZE" : "",
>> tab->at_wraparound ? " (wraparound)" : "");
> Yes, looks good.
May I suggest "(to prevent wraparound)" or something like that?
Otherwise, +1.
>> You're not proposing it for 8.3 right?
> I think I am. It's an important diagnostic for your other fix.
I agree, this is important for visibility into what's happening.
The string isn't getting translated so I don't see any big downside
to applying the patch in back branches.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?
In-Reply-To: <10642.1216359878@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox