Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes:
>> I think a LOG entry when an autovacuum process is actually canceled >> has value just in case it is happening on a particular table so >> frequently that the table starts to bloat. I see no reason to log >> anything if there is an intention to cancel an autovacuum process >> but it actually completes before we can do so. > Hm. By that logic, I'm not sure if we need anything to be logged here, > because the autovacuum process will log something about having received > a query cancel signal. That seems sufficient to me for normal cases. > If we're in the business of minimizing log chatter, I'd suggest that > we remove the entirely-routine "sending cancel" log message, and only > log something in the uncommon case where the kill() fails (but, per > original point, reduce that entry to LOG or so; or else print something > only for not-ESRCH cases). +1 for only printing for the non-ESRCH cases. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers