| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |
| Date: | 2007-09-18 16:31:03 |
| Message-ID: | 46EFFD47.1020204@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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)
Sincerely,
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/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG7/1HATb/zqfZUUQRAorXAJ47OZI8n7Bpj4pRyxRO1nGCUC7L0wCgojPZ
74vcXOZ1KqTFKw8v/w4WngI=
=Bpc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-18 16:32:39 | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-18 16:10:28 | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |