Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:06:33 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum
Message-ID: <20070417180633.GA15495@alvh.no-ip.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
References: <1173369949.3641.132.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<20070308175330.GW4715@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<1173378696.3641.162.camel@silverbirch.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1173378696.3641.162.camel@silverbirch.site>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >  Maybe something like this is better:
> > 
> > LOG: index passes: 1  pages: removed 0, 197 remain  tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain  CPU usage: whatever
> > CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table "database.public.w"
> 
> Yours is better.
> 
> I've implemented this:
> 
> LOG: autovac "public.w" index passes: 1  pages: removed 0, 197 remain
> tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain  CPU usage: whatever
> 
> I'm happy if this gets removed later, but I think it will help everybody
> understand how multi-vacuums are working and what the best way to
> specify the controls should be.
> 
> Not sure about the CONTEXT bit. I think its verbose, plus I thought that
> was for ERRORs only. I will defer on this point, since I know y'all
> understand that better than I.

I've tinkered with this patch a bit.  Sample output:

LOG:  automatic vacuum of table "alvherre.public.foo": index scans: 0
        pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
        tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
        system usage: CPU 0.29s/0.38u sec elapsed 2.56 sec

Please comment.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support