| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Date: | 2019-04-17 19:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=OeXgWHc47QzVwhrGKx8=-9wu1EO3q6AgiGdijjKaZHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, if we wanted to expose these complications more directly, we
> could think about adding or changing the main counters. I was wondering
> about whether we should have it report "x bytes and y line pointers
> freed", rather than counting tuples per se.
I like that idea, but I'm pretty sure that there are very few users
that are aware of these distinctions at all. It would be a good idea
to clearly document them.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2019-04-17 20:02:24 | Re: Status of the table access method work |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-17 17:46:17 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |