Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > This seems to work for me. I'd appreciate input, as I'm not sure how > would other archs (or even my own) cope with the zeroed client address > trick (note the memcmp ...) AFAICS that should work; I can't imagine all-zeroes being a valid client address. I'd suggest commenting it as "process has no client" rather than "don't know". > (The actual activity reported is a bit bogus ... I'd appreciate > suggestions for better wording. Do I waste cycles in obtaining the > relname? My answer is yes. What if there are multiple rels (a case > currently not exercised)?. Should it explicitly say that it's > autovacuum? My answer is no.) What I was expecting was to see one of VACUUM ANALYZE VACUUM ANALYZE VACUUM foo ANALYZE foo VACUUM ANALYZE foo ie exactly the command being executed if you were to type the manual equivalent. Since the multiple-rels case isn't used, there seems no need to debate how it ought to report... BTW, patches are probably off-topic for pgsql-general. regards, tom lane
