On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 15 August 2017 at 02:27, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@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
Yeah, I was thinking that too. But since there are a lot of message that output relation name I proposed this for the first step. > I would also be inclined to do this by changing only the string > presented, not the actual message string. +1 > e.g. > replace RelationGetRelationName() with > RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName() > and then control whether we include this new behaviour with > log_qualified_object_names = on | off Is there any case where we don't want to get non-qualified object names? If users want to get the same log message as what they got so far, it would be better to have a GUC that allows us to switch between the existing behavior and the forcibly logging qualified object names. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
