| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums |
| Date: | 2017-11-27 01:03:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTaVWd9vAjRzMOCKHP9k6ge-0u4w_7-YHKZ+gynGN8fpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Mumble. It's a property I'm pretty hesitant to give up, especially
>>> since the stats views have worked like that since day one. It's
>>> inevitable that weakening that guarantee would break peoples' queries,
>>> probably subtly.
>
>> You mean, queries against the stats views, or queries in general? If
>> the latter, by what mechanism would the breakage happen?
>
> Queries against the stats views, of course.
There has been much discussion on this thread, and the set of patches
as presented may hurt performance for users with a large number of
tables, so I am marking it as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-11-27 01:05:39 | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-27 01:02:22 | Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums |