On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:58:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could
> > hint pgstat to create the entry instead.
>
> The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to
> populate its entire hashtable. Which more or less defeats the idea of
> not wasting table space on inactive tables --- and given the way the
> reporting-file mechanism works, there's definitely an incentive to not
> make the table bigger than it has to be.
>
> It wouldn't be so bad if pgstat had a mechanism for aging out unused
> table entries ...
Maybe a good compromise would be only populating info for tables that
had dead tuples... that would eliminate any static tables, and most DBAs
should know that those tables are static.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
