Re: [GENERAL] [PATCHES] A way to let Vacuum warn if FSM settings are low. [final?]

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
 I never heard any discussion on whether this should be backpatched to
 8.0.X.  Should it?

I'm not inclined to throw it in at the last minute, as it's not been
through any testing and I'm not sure the behavior has really been agreed
on anyway.  (The diff you cite starts from code that's not in 8.0.* either.)

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Re: [GENERAL] [PATCHES] A way to let Vacuum warn if FSM settings are low. [final?]

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
 Ron Mayer wrote:
 My reasoning why I thought the log file was more useful was
 that only an admin with access to the log files could really
 do anything about the message anyway.

 The log file is useful, but I think showing the VACUUM user is _more_
 useful than the log file.

I think that reasoning is fundamentally unsound, because (a) a lot of
people already do vacuuming via a cron job or autovacuum, and (b)
autovacuum is definitely the wave of the future.  So it's foolish
to design this messaging around the assumption that there will be
a human attentive to the on-line output from VACUUM.  We should be
ensuring that the message gets into the postmaster log --- whether
it gets sent to the client is secondary.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly