Vacuum cancels autovacuum error message confusing?
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: BUG #4887: inclusion operator (@>)on tsqeries behaves not conforming to documentation
Next: [HACKERS] BETA
From: Alvaro Herrera on 20 Apr 2010 16:57 Josh Berkus wrote: > vacuum...ERROR: canceling autovacuum task > CONTEXT: automatic analyze of table "bench.public.pgbench_accounts" > ERROR: canceling autovacuum task > CONTEXT: automatic analyze of table "bench.public.pgbench_accounts" > done. > > What happened above is that the build of the new pgbench database > triggered an autovacuum, and then pgbench called a manual vacuum, > cancelling the autovacuum. Isn't this just because you ran the postmaster in the same terminal as pgbench? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 20 Apr 2010 17:37 > Isn't this just because you ran the postmaster in the same terminal as > pgbench? Right, but those messages appear in the logs as well. I'm thinking of the reaction of anyone reading the logs ... since they wouldn't, at that time, know about a manual vacuum that happened. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Alvaro Herrera on 20 Apr 2010 18:51 Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Isn't this just because you ran the postmaster in the same terminal as > > pgbench? > > Right, but those messages appear in the logs as well. I'm thinking of > the reaction of anyone reading the logs ... since they wouldn't, at that > time, know about a manual vacuum that happened. Eh? I think they could examine pg_stat_user_tables to see the last vacuum time of the table ... in fact, wouldn't one do exactly that before reaching any conclusions about this error message? Or are you saying that each and every VACUUM should emit a LOG message? You know, so that the user knows that a vacuum happened, manual or otherwise. That said, I'm not wedded to that message wording; feel free to propose something better. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 20 Apr 2010 19:07 > That said, I'm not wedded to that message wording; feel free to propose > something better. Yeah, I'm looking to see if we can determine the difference between an autovac which was cancelled by vacuum and one which was cancelled for another reason. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 20 Apr 2010 21:13
Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> writes: > vacuum...ERROR: canceling autovacuum task > CONTEXT: automatic analyze of table "bench.public.pgbench_accounts" > ERROR: canceling autovacuum task > CONTEXT: automatic analyze of table "bench.public.pgbench_accounts" > done. > What happened above is that the build of the new pgbench database > triggered an autovacuum, and then pgbench called a manual vacuum, > cancelling the autovacuum. > However, the error message which autovacuum gives does not indicate that > it was superceded by a manual vacuum, which could confuse users and make > them think there's some kind of actual vacuum failure. Is it worth > fixing the error message? What's to fix? The autovacuum was in fact canceled. What would you propose doing differently? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |