Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZH9LFhxX9r0hqrMN7eBySNabb5jkV4H9hcxyAcj2gnkA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Of course, the other obvious question is whether we really need a
>> consistent snapshot, because that's bound to be pretty expensive even
>> if you eliminate the I/O cost.  Taking a consistent snapshot across
>> all 100,000 tables in the database even if we're only ever going to
>> access 5 of those tables doesn't seem like a good or scalable design.
>
> Mumble.  It's a property I'm pretty hesitant to give up, especially
> since the stats views have worked like that since day one.  It's
> inevitable that weakening that guarantee would break peoples' queries,
> probably subtly.

You mean, queries against the stats views, or queries in general?  If
the latter, by what mechanism would the breakage happen?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory error in src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums