From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core? |
Date: | 2013-10-03 22:34:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkK5AOfa1HxeYOpCczch5mUnAQhian7Wm2cBH1P=aVog@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In my practice I quite often face the problem of bloated tables. I
> usually use pgstattuple to perform investigations. I also create a
> tool that uses UPDATEs based way to smoothly remove bloat
> (https://github.com/grayhemp/pgtoolkit) and it partially depends on
> pgstatuple too. To be more precise it gets much more effective with
> pgstattuple.
>
> Sometimes its installation leads to a headache, because it requires an
> approve from security and admins, it also a problem when I have a
> read-only access or no access to the database at all (eg. when
> consulting somebody by IM or phone). I think I am not the only person
> who faced these nuances.
Well, this is a general problem with any extension - somebody might
want it on a system on which the admin is unable or unwilling to
install it. But we can't put every possible extension in core.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Hale Boyes | 2013-10-03 22:38:52 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add DISCARD SEQUENCES command. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-03 22:28:42 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |