Le lun. 11 nov. 2024 à 03:05, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 06:24:54PM +0300, Alena Rybakina wrote: > > yes, I agree with you. Even when I experimented with vacuum settings for > > database and used my vacuum statistics patch [0] for analyzes , I first > > looked at this change in the number of blocks or deleted rows at the > > database level, > > and only then did an analysis of each table and index. > > > > [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/50/5012/ > > As hinted on other related threads like around [1], I am so-so about > the proposal of these numbers at table and index level now that we > have e7a9496de906 and 5d4298e75f25. > > In such cases, I apply the concept that I call the "Mention Bien" (or > when you get a baccalaureat diploma with honors and with a 14~16/20 in > France). What we have is not perfect, still it's good enough to get > a 14/20 IMO, making hopefully 70~80% of users happy with these new > metrics. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be curious to know if this > thread's proposal is required at all at the end. > > I agree with you. We'll see if we need more, but it's already good to have the metrics already commited. > I have not looked at the logging proposal yet. > > I hope you'll have time to look at it. It seems to me very important to get that kind of info in the logs. Thanks again. > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/zywxw7vqplbfv...@paquier.xyz > -- > Michael > -- Guillaume.
