| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |
| Date: | 2023-01-18 21:12:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmUa2WH3rtUSSbVshDvu1iVK8yMiYK3SXs6UEw1M60Ljg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:02 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Some of what I'm proposing arguably amounts to deliberately adding a
> bias. But that's not an unreasonable thing in itself. I think of it as
> related to the bias-variance tradeoff, which is a concept that comes
> up a lot in machine learning and statistical inference.
To be clear, I was thinking of unreservedly trusting what
pgstat_report_analyze() says about dead_tuples in the event of its
estimate increasing our dead_tuples estimate, while being skeptical
(to a varying degree) when it's the other way around.
But now I need to go think about what Andres just brought up...
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-01-18 21:14:14 | Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-18 21:08:44 | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |