Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8f106c5b-5b61-89b4-cbc1-56c213254175@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?
Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: