Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
Shouldn't the update to the toast table just be considered an update to
table t1? The fact that there is an underlying toast table is an
implementation detail that I don't think should show up in the stats system.
At the level of the stats system, though, you are interested in
"implementation details". The fact that there is such a concept as an
index is an implementation detail according to the SQL standard --- but
if we hid that we wouldn't be able to show things that people want to
know.
In particular, I think people would like to be able to use the stats
views to see how much toast-related I/O is going on, and not have that
smushed together with main-table I/O.
Fair enough, but how are you planning to display the data, if the stat
system just reports that there was an update to a corresponding toast
table, that still isn't going to tell us how many pages that updated
effected, and then we are back to the all updates are not created equal
problem. Currently autovac doesn't look at the block level stats, maybe
it should for this reason.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
