Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?

On 2019-Mar-27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 2019-03-26 16:28, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > I don't remember why we didn't consider table without stats to be
> > ANALYZEd. Isn't it the case to fix autovacuum? Analyze
> > autovacuum_count + vacuum_count = 0?
>
> When the autovacuum system was introduced, we didn't have those columns.
> But now it seems to make sense that a table with autoanalyze_count +
> analyze_count = 0 should be a candidate for autovacuum even if the write
> statistics are zero. Obviously, this would have the effect that a
> pg_stat_reset() causes an immediate autovacuum for all tables, so maybe
> it's not quite that simple.

I'd say it would make them a candidate for auto-analyze; upon completion
of that, there's sufficient data to determine whether auto-vacuum is
needed or not. This sounds like a sensible idea to me.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services