Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqR2bn2+u7KU+7=49s0dBhj5SxFpgg2xYcYB6dbb75N6HA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> Alright, I've added logging for autovacuum in v23.  I ended up needing to
> do a little restructuring to handle the case when the relation was skipped
> because the lock could not be obtained.  While doing so, I became
> convinced that LOG was probably the right level for autovacuum logs.

+       if (IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && params->log_min_duration >= 0)
+           elevel = LOG;
+       else if (!IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
+           elevel = WARNING;
+       else
+           elevel = 0;
OK, of course let's not change the existing log levels. This could be
always tuned later on depending on feedback from others. I can see
that guc.c also uses elevel == 0 for some logic, so we could rely on
that as you do.

@@ -116,6 +116,9 @@ analyze_rel(Oid relid, RangeVar *relation, int options,   int         elevel;
AcquireSampleRowsFuncacquirefunc = NULL;   BlockNumber relpages = 0;
 
+   bool        rel_lock;
+
+   Assert(relation != NULL);
I can see that this is new in your patch. Definitely adapted.

In short, I am switching it back to "ready for committer". We may want
the locking issues when building the relation list to be settled
first.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Minor codegen silliness in ExecInterpExpr()
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Partitions: \d vs \d+