Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - pg_statistic is completely ignored.

... pg_statistic still needs vacuuming, surely.  It's only ANALYZE
that you can/should skip for it.

> - The postmaster's main loop sleeps Min(60, autovacuum_naptime), in
>   order to be able to pick naptimes smaller than 60 seconds.  In order
>   not to make the loop a busy-wait, I forced a minimum of 1 to that GUC
>   var.

Hmm, I wonder whether the minimum shouldn't be 10.  Or even 60.

> - Now that we have a real Xid wraparound check, we could go back to
>   having any table with no stat entry ignored, which was the original
>   coding.  There's no danger of wraparound, and there'd be no work done
>   to a table that doesn't have any activity.


>   We have to consider what
>   happens at stat reset -- AFAICS there's no problem, because as soon as
>   the table sees some activity, it will be picked up by pgstat.
>   However, it would be bad if stats are reset right after some heavy
>   activity on a table.  Maybe the only thing we need is documentation.

What's the use-case for having the stat reset feature at all?

> - datallowcon is still ignored.  Now it's safe to do so, because we have
>   a real Xid wraparound check.  Changing it requires extending the
>   pg_database flat-file (should be fairly easy).

I think this is all right, as long as a database that shows no stats
traffic is only connected to when it needs to be vacuumed for XID wrap
prevention purposes.

> - There are stat messages emitted for a database-wide vacuum, just like
>   any other.  This means that all tables in the database would end up in
>   pgstat; and also all databases, including those with datallowconn = false.
>   This may not be good.  I'm not sure what exactly to do about it.  Do
>   we want to disallow such stats?  Disable message sending (or
>   collecting) in some circumstances?

Needs thought...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to