To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum 
In-reply-to: <20070417221804.GH15495@alvh.no-ip.org> 
References: <1173369949.3641.132.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<20070308175330.GW4715@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<1173378696.3641.162.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<20070417180633.GA15495@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<1176834315.3635.414.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<20070417184550.GC15495@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20070417151004.f59498b0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<9363.1176841144@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20070417204049.GD15495@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20070417221804.GH15495@alvh.no-ip.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:18:04 -0400"
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:32:26 -0400
Message-ID: <15057.1176849146@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
>>> ANALYZE, or both?
>> 
>> We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
>> lazy_vacuum_rel).
>> 
>> Maybe it should be in autovacuum.c.

Actually, I had misunderstood where you were proposing to put this.
I believe that where you have it, the elapsed-time indication will
only cover the VACUUM step; so it's not relevant to this code whether
an ANALYZE would happen too.

My suggestion is that you add similar but independent logging to
analyze.c, controlled by the same min-duration variable.  So the
log output would treat autovac and autoanalyze as two independently
loggable operations.  I don't think there's much to print about
an autoanalyze except its runtime ... well, maybe you could print
the numbers of rows sampled and estimated, but I dunno if it matters.
The point of doing it is just to be able to track what the heck
autovacuum is doing ...

			regards, tom lane