Has this been done yet? I don't think so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2007-26-04 at 18:07 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> (1) I believe the reasoning for Tom's earlier change was not to reduce
> >> the I/O between the backend and the pgstat process [...]
>
> > Tom, any comments on this? Your change introduced an undocumented
> > regression into 8.2. I think you're on the hook for a documentation
> > update at the very least, if not a revert.
>
> The documentation update seems the most prudent thing to me. The
> problem with the prior behavior is that it guarantees that every table
> in the database will eventually have a pg_stat entry, even if
> stats_row_level and stats_block_level are both off. In a DB with lots
> of tables that creates a significant overhead *for a feature the DBA
> probably thinks is turned off*. This is not how it worked before 8.2,
> and so 8.2.0's behavior is arguably a performance regression compared
> to 8.1 and before.
>
> Now this patch went in before we realized that 8.2.x had a bug in
> computing the stats-file-update delay, and it could be that after fixing
> that the problem is not so pressing. But I don't particularly care for
> new features that impose a performance penalty on those who aren't using
> them, and that's exactly what last_vacuum/last_analyze tracking does if
> we allow it to bloat the stats file in the default configuration.
>
> The long-term answer of course is to devise a more efficient stats
> reporting scheme, but I'm not sure offhand what that would look like.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +