| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Date: | 2014-11-10 18:37:29 |
| Message-ID: | 546105E9.4070305@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/10/14, 12:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >If what we want is to quantify the extent of the issue, would it be more
>> >convenient to save counters to pgstat? Vacuum already sends pgstat
>> >messages, so there's no additional traffic there.
> I'm pretty strongly against that one in isolation. They'd need to be
> stored somewhere and they'd need to be queryable somewhere with enough
> context to make sense. To actually make sense of the numbers we'd also
> need to report all the other datapoints of vacuum in some form. That's
> quite a worthwile project imo - but*much* *much* more work than this.
We already report statistics on vacuums (lazy_vacuum_rel()/pgstat_report_vacuum), so this would just be adding 1 or 2 counters to that. Should we add the other counters from vacuum? That would be significantly more data.
Semi-related, we should probably be reporting stats from heap truncation.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-11-10 18:37:57 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-11-10 18:36:55 | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |