| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority |
| Date: | 2026-04-08 19:35:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uOENy8Y+UNXpcGvFFHhT_oxYPqa-o0Jv1rOriC6w8VSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > This sounds most similar to the "bool *may_free" idea that Andres just
> > posted. IIUC the idea is that callers can free the result if they want,
> > but they aren't required to do so.
>
> Hmm, yeah I suppose a caller that doesn't care about leakage could
> skip the pfree. But are there really any of those? The complaint
> that prompted 02502c1bc concerned databases with many many thousands
> of relations.
>
> I now realize that what you said upthread about caching the results
> might be a bigger problem, ie if the pgstats code does retain all
> these values then we'd have a memory bloat problem there. Maybe
> we need a more aggressive API change that includes a way to specify
> "don't cache this result".
hmm, do you mean an API to override the pgstat_fetch_consistency GUC?
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-04-08 19:44:02 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | Lukas Fittl | 2026-04-08 19:25:54 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |