Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+jLkm+cHpxhzcR8kwAo4NxEdvO7JYsXQu8HWHaEMPuRa0w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 15 August 2017 at 02:27, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any reasons why we don't
> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs?

None. Sounds like a good idea.

> If not, can we add
> schema names to be more clearly?

Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this only for VACUUM
though? I see many messages in various places that need same treatment

I would also be inclined to do this by changing only the string
presented, not the actual message string.
e.g.
replace RelationGetRelationName() with
RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName()

and then control whether we include this new behaviour with
log_qualified_object_names = on | off

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Ioseph Kim
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] locale problem of bgworker: logical replication launcher and workerprocess
Следующее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions