From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: handling TOAST tables in autovacuum |
Date: | 2008-06-08 23:17:46 |
Message-ID: | 18944.1212967066@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> The only change of some consideration is that we will need two passes
> over pg_class to get the list of relations to vacuum, instead of one as
> we do currently. The problem is that we first need to fetch the
> (heap relid, toast relid) mapping before attempting to figure out if any
> given TOAST table needs vacuuming. This is because we want to be using
> the main table's pg_autovacuum, and we can't get at that unless we know
> the main relid.
Umm ... is it chiseled in stone someplace that toast tables shouldn't
have their own pg_autovacuum entries? Seems like that might be a
reasonable component of a "whole nine yards" approach.
> Should we display TOAST tables separately in pg_stat_*_tables? (Maybe
> pg_stat_toast_tables?)
+1 for pg_stat_toast_tables, I think. If you separate them out then
there will need to be some kind of smarts to help the user figure out
which main table a toast table belongs to. This would be easy with a
separate view.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2008-06-08 23:45:33 | Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-06-08 23:07:21 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |