Re: patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats.

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <lrosenman(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats.
Date: 2006-05-03 13:54:57
Message-ID: 20060503135457.GB27354@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:49:33PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Back in the discussion of this someone had mentioned capturing all the
> info that you'd get from a vacuum verbose; dead tuples, etc. What do
> people think about that? In particular I think it'd be handy to know how
> many pages vacuum wanted in the FSM vs. how many it got; this would make
> it much easier for people to ensure that the FSM is large enough. Using
> the functions that let you query the FSM won't work because they can't
> tell you if there are pages that should have been in the FSM but didn't
> make it in.

That's a good idea too, but in that case I'd vote for putting it into a
seperate table/view and not with the stats relating to number of seq
scans for example.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-03 15:12:28 Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
Previous Message Jim Buttafuoco 2006-05-03 13:10:19 drop database command blocking other connections

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-03 14:17:43 Re: Page at a time index scan
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-05-03 09:14:38 Re: Page at a time index scan