|From:||Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
At 2015-05-11 19:15:47 +0200, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de wrote:
> TBH, I'd rather not touch unrelated things right now. We're pretty
> badly behind...
OK. That patch is independent; just ignore it.
> I don't really care how it's named, as long as it makes clear that
> it's not an exact measurement.
Not having heard any better suggestions, I picked "pgstatapprox" as a
compromise between length and familiarity/consistency with pgstattuple.
> > Should I count the space it would have free if it were initialised,
> > but leave the page alone for VACUUM to deal with?
And this is what the attached patch does.
I also cleaned up a few things that I didn't like but had left alone to
make the code look similar to pgstattuple. In particular, build_tuple()
now does nothing but build a tuple from values calculated earlier in
P.S. What, if anything, should be done about the complicated and likely
not very useful skip-only-min#-blocks logic in lazy_scan_heap?
|Next Message||Peter Geoghegan||2015-05-11 19:25:44||Re: [BUGS] BUG #13148: Unexpected deferred EXCLUDE constraint violation on derived table|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2015-05-11 19:01:50||Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions|