Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions
Date: 2025-04-09 21:48:24
Message-ID: CAKFQuwb02TUjJXBRqkm8d=wA8uysttAPfTkUfDzr6uLUSVifZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, April 9, 2025, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> In other words, the reason n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced is to freeze
> (committed) rows, so it should not need to track dead rows to do what it
> intends
> to do.
>

n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced to indicate how many tuples a vacuum
would touch on an insert-only table should vacuum be run now. Autovacuum
uses this value when determining whether a given relation should be
vacuumed.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2025-04-09 22:05:39 Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2025-04-09 21:47:19 Summarizing indexes allowing single-phase VACUUM?