Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Correct.
> 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 ...
Seems fair. Updated patch attached.
If there are no further comments, I'll add some docs and apply it later.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.