On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:28 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't think that there is any risk of one user of either variable
> "clobbering" some other user -- the current values of the variables
> are not actually meaningful at all. They're only useful as a way that
> an arbitrary piece of code
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:00 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I knew about pgBufferUsage, and I knew about
> VacuumPage{Hit,Miss,Dirty} for a long time. But somehow I didn't make
> the very obvious connection between the two until today. I am probably
> not the only one.
What about
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:50 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> As for your general question, I think you must be right. From a quick
> rummage around in the commit log, it does appear that commit cddca5ec
> (2009), which introduced pgBufferUsage, always bumped the counters
> unconditionally. It predated
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:03 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I just realized that there is one remaining problem: parallel VACUUM
> doesn't care about these global variables, so there will still be
> discrepancies there. I can't really blame that on parallel VACUUM,
> though, because
My recent bugfix commit d3609dd2 addressed an issue with VACUUM
VERBOSE. It would aggregate buffers hit/missed/dirtied counts
incorrectly (by double counting), though only when there are multiple
heap rels processed by the same VACUUM command. It failed to account
for the fact that the
