| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(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: | 2025-04-09 21:23:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHgHdKt1Wvr+DNp=5QBFMesfo+z2s-MLERTfDj0HcfkbSubjoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> In other words, the reason n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced is to freeze
> (committed) rows, so it should not need to track dead rows to do what it
> intends
> to do.
>
Wouldn't that result in the rather strange behavior that 1 million dead
rows might trigger a vacuum due to one threshold, 1 million inserted live
rows might trigger a vacuum due to another threshold, while half a million
dead plus half a million live fails to meet either threshold and fails to
trigger a vacuum? What is the use case for that behavior? Perhaps you
have one, but until you make it explicit, it is hard for others to get
behind your proposal.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-04-09 21:47:19 | Summarizing indexes allowing single-phase VACUUM? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-04-09 21:01:56 | Re: SQLFunctionCache and generic plans |