"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:58:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could
>>> hint pgstat to create the entry instead.
>>
>> The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to
>> populate its entire hashtable.
> Maybe a good compromise would be only populating info for tables that
> had dead tuples... that would eliminate any static tables, and most DBAs
> should know that those tables are static.
Hm, that definitely seems like an idea. Does the current pgstat message
from vacuum tell how many rows it deleted?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
