| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thakur, Sameer" <Sameer(dot)Thakur(at)nttdata(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Date: | 2015-07-24 18:06:56 |
| Message-ID: | 55B27EC0.9030809@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/23/15 5:18 AM, Thakur, Sameer wrote:
> Hello,
>> >logged > 25 times
> Sorry, it is much lower at 7 times. Does not change overall point though
I think it's related to the problem of figuring out how many dead tuples
you expect to find in the overall heap, which you need to do to have any
hope of this being a comprehensive estimate.
My inclination at this point is to provide a simple means of providing
the raw numbers and let users test it in the wild. A really crude method
of doing that might be to trap SIGINFO (if we're not using it already)
and elog current status.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-07-24 18:10:59 | Re: optimizing vacuum truncation scans |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-24 18:03:38 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |