Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mark Dilger
Тема Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions
Дата
Msg-id CAHgHdKsjGkrdpjZxmfOYxuvhBDrBK48T9bMKmb-6Pj38NiLYXA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions  (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers



The issue I see is that n_ins_since_vacuum should only
reflect the number of newly inserted rows that are eligible for
freezing, as described
in pgstat_report_vacuum [0]

[0] https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_relation.c#L238-L247

For the archives, that paragraph reads:

 /*
* It is quite possible that a non-aggressive VACUUM ended up skipping
* various pages, however, we'll zero the insert counter here regardless.
* It's currently used only to track when we need to perform an "insert"
* autovacuum, which are mainly intended to freeze newly inserted tuples.
* Zeroing this may just mean we'll not try to vacuum the table again
* until enough tuples have been inserted to trigger another insert
* autovacuum.  An anti-wraparound autovacuum will catch any persistent
* stragglers.
*/

What work do you believe the word "mainly" does in that paragraph?  The presence of the word "mainly" rather than "only" somewhat cuts against your argument that we should only be counting tuples that get inserted without aborting.


Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: