> On Sep 24, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> I'm very doubtful this is an improvement. Especially with the upcoming
> pluggable storage work making vacuumlazy.c heap specific, while vacuum.c
> stays generic. The concept of something like
> PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND, should imo not be pushed down that much
> (even if criteria for it might).
That’s already a problem since vacuum logging is spread all over while autovac logging is not. Perhaps there needs to
besome sort of vacuum_log() function that immediately provides output for manual vacuums, but aggregates output for
autovac.AFAIK that’s the only real reason for autovac logging being a special case today.