On Aug 3, 2007, at 14:59 , Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to
log_autovacuum_min_duration?
Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_durati
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 18:56 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Actually, we happen to be running into a situation here where we need more
> logging. We need to understand why autovacuum isn't considering logging this
> table:
>
> relid | schemaname | relname | seq_scan | seq_tup_read | idx_scan |
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to log_autovacuum_min_duration?
>
> > Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would be more
> > consistent.
>
>
Actually, we happen to be running into a situation here where we need more
logging. We need to understand why autovacuum isn't considering logging this
table:
relid | schemaname | relname | seq_scan | seq_tup_read | idx_scan |
idx_tup_fetch | n_tup_ins | n_tup_upd | n_tup_del | n_live_tup |
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to log_autovacuum_min_duration?
> Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would be more
> consistent.
I'm not sure I believe Greg's argument about needing more autovac
l
Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to log_autovacuum_min_duration?
Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would be more
consistent.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"El día que dejes de cambiar d
Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to log_autovacuum_min_duration?
I found it confusing to when setting it to 0 *enabled* logging so I imagine
others will be as well. Also it seems we may want to have other messages
logged from autovacuum so it would be better to leave room for other
log_aut
