| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
| Date: | 2025-04-18 04:13:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvopVdM7jE32i+i_EVV9Gseqq4kz7cJad8hx9ktSV+NREw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 at 07:33, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What do you think of the attached?
I looked at the v3 patch and I'm having trouble getting excited about it.
I'd say this part is misleading:
@@ -3956,7 +3961,8 @@ description | Waiting for a newly initialized
WAL file to reach durable storage
<structfield>n_dead_tup</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
</para>
<para>
- Estimated number of dead rows
+ Estimated number of dead rows (updated by committed transactions, or by
+ <command>VACUUM</command> and <command>VACUUM FULL</command>)
</para></entry>
An aborted insert will contribute to that counter, but that's not mentioned.
Would it be ok just to adjust n_mod_since_analyze's "Estimated number
of rows modified since this table was last analyzed" and inject "by
committed transactions" after "modified", then call it a day?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-04-18 04:28:57 | Re: Fix slot synchronization with two_phase decoding enabled |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-04-18 01:27:35 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |