| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, "'Jim C(dot) Nasby'" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
| Date: | 2006-08-24 17:15:48 |
| Message-ID: | 6956.1156439748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:58:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could
>>> hint pgstat to create the entry instead.
>>
>> The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to
>> populate its entire hashtable.
> Maybe a good compromise would be only populating info for tables that
> had dead tuples... that would eliminate any static tables, and most DBAs
> should know that those tables are static.
Hm, that definitely seems like an idea. Does the current pgstat message
from vacuum tell how many rows it deleted?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-24 17:17:49 | Re: invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-24 17:14:09 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |