On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:48:50PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hm, that definitely seems like an idea. Does the current pgstat message
> > from vacuum tell how many rows it deleted?
>
> Hum, no.
ISTM that wouldn't be bad info to track either... how many dead tuples
the last [auto]vacuum encountered.
--
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
