Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> Shouldn't the update to the toast table just be considered an update to
> table t1? The fact that there is an underlying toast table is an
> implementation detail that I don't think should show up in the stats system.

At the level of the stats system, though, you are interested in
"implementation details". The fact that there is such a concept as an
index is an implementation detail according to the SQL standard --- but
if we hid that we wouldn't be able to show things that people want to
know.

In particular, I think people would like to be able to use the stats
views to see how much toast-related I/O is going on, and not have that
smushed together with main-table I/O.

regards, tom lane