On 16/11/2011, at 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Royce Ausburn <royce...@inomial.com> wrote: >>> Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more >>> useful for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an >>> ineffective vacuum and postgres' logs weren't giving me any hints about >>> what was wrong. I turned to the mailing list and got immediate help, but I >>> felt that ideally postgres would be logging something to tell me that some >>> 1 day old transactions were preventing auto vacuum from doing its job. >>> Something, anything that I could google. Other novices in my situation >>> probably wouldn't know to look in the pg_stats* tables, so in retrospect my >>> patch isn't really achieving my original goal. >>> >>> Should we consider taking a logging approach instead? >> >> Dopey suggestion: >> >> Instead of logging around vacuum and auto_vacuum, perhaps log transactions >> that are open for longer than some (perhaps configurable) time? The default >> might be pretty large, say 6 hours. Are there common use cases for txs that >> run for longer than 6 hours? Seeing a message such as: >> >> WARNING: Transaction <X> has been open more than Y. This tx may be holding >> locks preventing other txs from operating and may prevent vacuum from >> cleaning up deleted rows. >> >> Would give a pretty clear indication of a problem :) > > Well, you could that much just by periodically querying pg_stat_activity.
Fair enough -- someone knowledgable could set that up if they wanted. My goal was mostly to have something helpful in the logs. If that's not something postgres wants/needs Ill drop it =) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
