Jochen Erwied <joc...@pgsql.erwied.eu> writes: > Monday, October 25, 2010, 4:12:39 PM you wrote: >> "Jochen Erwied" <joc...@pgsql.erwied.eu> writes: >>> VACUUM FULL does not update statistics so display of pg_stat_user_tables is >>> wrong. A normal VACUUM updates the relevant information.
>> Hmm. This is a definitional issue: what do we really mean by last_vacuum? >> I'm inclined to think that the current behavior is reasonable. VACUUM >> FULL is (still) not intended as a routine maintenance operation, and >> the point of that column is to track routine maintenance operations. > Well, when reading > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/monitoring-stats.html > then last_vacuum contains the last time of a user-initiated vacuum. There's > no distinction made what kind of vacuum was made. And IMHO even if VACUUM > FULL isn't meant for routine vacuuming, the state should be changed. Perhaps. The new implementation of VACUUM FULL is really more like a CLUSTER, or one of the rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE. Should all of those operations result in an update of last_vacuum? From an implementation standpoint it's difficult to say that only some of them should, because all of them result in a table that has no immediate need for vacuuming. The only argument I can see for having only VACUUM FULL update the timestamp is that it's called VACUUM and the others aren't. Which is an argument, but not a terribly impressive one IMO. > Of course the easiest way to fix this bug (or better flaw) is to change the > documentation :-) Yeah, that part of the docs will require editing no matter what we do. I'm just trying to get some clarity on what the most reasonable behavior is. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
