Re: Vacuum statistics

> On Nov 2, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> 
>>> The second is the interrupts field. It is needed for monitoring to know
>>> do we have them or not, so tracking them on the database level will do
>>> the trick. Interrupt is quite rare event, so once the monitoring system
>>> will catch one the DBA can go to the server log for the details.
>> Just to confirm… by “interrupt” you mean vacuum encountered an error?
> Yes it is.
In that case I feel rather strongly that we should label that as “errors”. “Interrupt” could mean a few different things, but “error” is very clear.
> I updated patches. I excluded system and user time statistics and save number of interrupts only for database.
> I removed the ability to get statistics for all tables, now they can only be obtained for an oid table [0], as suggested here. I also renamed the statistics from pg_stat_vacuum_tables to pg_stat_get_vacuum_tables and similarly for indexes and databases. I noticed that that’s what they’re mostly called. Ready for discussion.
> 
I think it’s better that the views follow the existing naming conventions (which don’t include “_get_”; only the functions have that in their names). Assuming that, the only question becomes pg_stat_vacuum_* vs pg_stat_*_vacuum. Given the existing precedent of pg_statio_*, I’m inclined to go with pg_stat_vacuum_*.