| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2025-04-09 20:19:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZDczMixPmZwoxrWabJCTK2ZMSetNcFz93peNYuko23Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025, 12:39 Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> They will differ because n_tup_ins keeps increasing, while
> n_ins_since_vacuum is
> reset after a vacuum. The issue I see is that n_ins_since_vacuum should
> only
> reflect the number of newly inserted rows that are eligible for
> freezing, as described
> in pgstat_report_vacuum [0]
>
Vacuuming them into oblivion is a form of freezing. It also removes the
aging xid from the table.
David J.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-04-09 20:30:24 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-04-09 20:13:34 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |