-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> * The patch makes undocumented changes that cause autovacuum's decisions
>> to be driven by total estimated dead space rather than total number of
>> dead tuples. Do we like this?
> If we do this, then it's not clear that having pgstats track dead space
> is worth the trouble at all. It might possibly be of value for testing
> purposes to see how well pruning is doing, but I'm unconvinced that it's
> worth bloating stats messages and files to have this number in a
> production system. An alternative that would serve as well for testing
> would be to teach contrib/pgstattuple to measure dead space.
As a DBA, I can say it doesn't really matter to me *how we track* the
dead space, as long as tracking it is:
1. Clear
2. Simple
3. Available by default (thus pgstattuple needs to push into core)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG7/1HATb/zqfZUUQRAorXAJ47OZI8n7Bpj4pRyxRO1nGCUC7L0wCgojPZ
74vcXOZ1KqTFKw8v/w4WngI=
=Bpc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
