Hash: SHA1

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> * The patch makes undocumented changes that cause autovacuum's decisions
>> to be driven by total estimated dead space rather than total number of
>> dead tuples.  Do we like this?

> If we do this, then it's not clear that having pgstats track dead space
> is worth the trouble at all.  It might possibly be of value for testing
> purposes to see how well pruning is doing, but I'm unconvinced that it's
> worth bloating stats messages and files to have this number in a
> production system.  An alternative that would serve as well for testing
> would be to teach contrib/pgstattuple to measure dead space.

As a DBA, I can say it doesn't really matter to me *how we track* the
dead space, as long as tracking it is:

1. Clear
2. Simple
3. Available by default (thus pgstattuple needs to push into core)


Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
                        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


---------------------------(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

Reply via email to