Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes:
> 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.
Rather than remove the "sending signal" elog entirely, I reduced it to
DEBUG1; that will avoid log chatter for normal cases but the info can
still be obtained at need.
>> 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.
Left that one as a WARNING, but it doesn't print for ESRCH.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
