Martin Pihlak escribió: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I agree that pgstats is not ideal (we've said this from the very > > beginning), but I doubt that updating pg_class is the answer; you'd be > > generating thousands of dead tuples there. > > But we already do update pg_class after vacuum -- in vac_update_relstats(). > Hmm, that performs a heap_inplace_update() ... I assume that this is cheap, > but have no idea as if it is suitable for the purpouse.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were suggesting to use pg_class to store number of tuples dead/alive/etc. I had a patch to introduce a new type of table, which would only be used for non-transactional updates. That would allow what you're proposing. I think we discussed something similar to what you propose and rejected it for some reason I can't recall offhand. Search the archives for pg_class_nt and pg_ntclass, that might give you some ideas. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
