Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?
Date
Msg-id 8f106c5b-5b61-89b4-cbc1-56c213254175@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?
Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-03-26 16:28, Euler Taveira wrote:
> I don't remember why we didn't consider table without stats to be
> ANALYZEd. Isn't it the case to fix autovacuum? Analyze
> autovacuum_count + vacuum_count = 0?

When the autovacuum system was introduced, we didn't have those columns.
 But now it seems to make sense that a table with autoanalyze_count +
analyze_count = 0 should be a candidate for autovacuum even if the write
statistics are zero.  Obviously, this would have the effect that a
pg_stat_reset() causes an immediate autovacuum for all tables, so maybe
it's not quite that simple.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages atthe end of relation
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)