Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
> >see any simple fix. A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
> >updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
> >case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
> >We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
> >the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
> I believe that whenever autovacuum performs a VACUUM it actually
> performs a VACUUM ANALYZE at leas the old contrib version did and I
> think Alvaro copied that.
Huh, no, it doesn't --- they are considered separately.
Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-06-01 16:34:00|
|Subject: Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updating anupdatable view)|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-06-01 15:16:12|
|Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch|