On 2021-Oct-28, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Thanks all for reviewing this. Here's the CF entry -
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3378/
Thanks, pushed. I changed a couple of things though -- notably changed
the elog() to ereport() as suggested by Nathan early on, but never
materialized in
On 10/28/21, 5:42 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> Thanks all for reviewing this. Here's the CF entry -
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3378/
I've marked this one as ready-for-committer.
Nathan
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:26:11 -0500, Justin Pryzby
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Wed, Oct 27,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:26:11 -0500, Justin Pryzby
> > wrote in
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > > My vote is to just
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 8:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> > LOG: level: 1; AV worker: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (0 chunks);
> > 264 used
>
> Good catch. I've seen the use of "AV" in some of the mem context
> names, why that? Let's be specific and say "Autovacuum". Attached
> patch
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:26:11 -0500, Justin Pryzby
> wrote in
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > My vote is to just change it to
> > >
> > > ereport(WARNING,
> > >
At Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:26:11 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote
in
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > My vote is to just change it to
> >
> > ereport(WARNING,
> > (errmsg("autovacuum worker took too long to start;
> > canceled")));
> >
> >
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 10/27/21, 9:29 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
> > Is there a specific reason that we have a generic WARNING "worker took
> > too long to start; canceled" for an autovacuum worker? Isn't it better
> > with "autovacuum worker
On 10/27/21, 9:29 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> Is there a specific reason that we have a generic WARNING "worker took
> too long to start; canceled" for an autovacuum worker? Isn't it better
> with "autovacuum worker took too long to start; canceled"? It is
> confusing to see the generic
Hi,
Is there a specific reason that we have a generic WARNING "worker took
too long to start; canceled" for an autovacuum worker? Isn't it better
with "autovacuum worker took too long to start; canceled"? It is
confusing to see the generic message in the server logs while
debugging an issue for a
10 matches
Mail list logo
