| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? |
| Date: | 2019-04-13 09:51:05 |
| Message-ID: | 0c4a9d2f-e607-1303-7f41-cbbaad0e7e33@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/03/2019 22:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-03-26 16:28, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> I don't remember why we didn't consider table without stats to be
>> ANALYZEd. Isn't it the case to fix autovacuum? Analyze
>> autovacuum_count + vacuum_count = 0?
>
> When the autovacuum system was introduced, we didn't have those columns.
> But now it seems to make sense that a table with autoanalyze_count +
> analyze_count = 0 should be a candidate for autovacuum even if the write
> statistics are zero. Obviously, this would have the effect that a
> pg_stat_reset() causes an immediate autovacuum for all tables, so maybe
> it's not quite that simple.
Not just pg_stat_reset() but also on promotion.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-04-13 13:36:13 | Re: PostgreSQL pollutes the file system |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-04-13 00:06:52 | Re: serializable transaction: exclude constraint violation (backed by GIST index) instead of ssi conflict |