On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 12:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs escribió:
>
> > Sorry to come in on late on this: That wording is better, but it still
> > doesn't explain why it has occurred or what the user should do about it.
> > I think we will get other complaints saying "why has my autovacuum been
> > canceled?" and "what should I do about this?".
> >
> > Perhaps it should be
> > "canceling autovacuum task; will reschedule when user tasks complete"
> > or
> > "autovacuum canceled temporarily to allow user task to proceed"
> >
> > or something that explains that what has happened is a good thing and
> > the task that has been canceled will be automatically re-tried.
>
> Perhaps the added phrase could be put in a errdetail() or something like
> that. The problem is detecting that this is really the case. How would
> it know that it wasn't user-inflicted?
True. We can say "task will be automatically re-scheduled", so that
people understand the message and don't start asking us.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com