Dne 23.12.2010 20:09, Robert Haas napsal(a):
> 2010/12/23 Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>:
>> Dne 20.12.2010 00:03, Tom Lane napsal(a):
>>> I wrote:
>>>> That is not the number of interest.  The number of interest is that it's
>>>> 8 bytes added onto a struct that currently contains 11 of 'em; in other
>>>> words a 9% increase in the size of the stats file, and consequently
>>>> about a 9% increase in the cost of updating it.
>>>
>>> Wups, sorry, I was looking at the wrong struct.  It's actually an
>>> addition of 1 doubleword to a struct of 21 of 'em, or about 5%.
>>> That's still an awful lot in comparison to the prospective usefulness
>>> of the information.
>>>
>>>                       regards, tom lane
>>>
>>
>> OK, so here goes the simplified patch - it tracks one reset timestamp
>> for a background writer and for each database.
> 
> I think you forgot the attachment.

Yes, I did. Thanks!

Tomas

In response to

• Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a db, table and function) at 2010-12-23 19:09:13 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a db, table and function) at 2011-01-30 22:22:50 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Magnus Hagander	Date: 2010-12-23 19:57:08
	Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions
Previous:	From: Tomas Vondra	Date: 2010-12-23 19:39:40
	Subject: Re: proposal : cross-column stats