Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > If we apply Heikki's idea of advancing OldestXmin, I think what we
> > should do is grab the value from pgstats when vacuum starts, and each
> > time we're going to advance OldestXmin, grab the value from pgstats
> > again; accumulate the differences from the various pgstat grabs. At the
> > end we send the accumulated differences as the new dead tuple count.
>
> Considering that each of those values will be up to half a second old,
> I can hardly think that this will accomplish anything except to
> introduce a great deal of noise ...

Normally, yes, but the values can be older if the vacuum_cost_delay is
large.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.