Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-11-10 14:28:30 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > If what we want is to quantify the extent of the issue, would it be more > > convenient to save counters to pgstat? Vacuum already sends pgstat > > messages, so there's no additional traffic there. > > I'm pretty strongly against that one in isolation. They'd need to be > stored somewhere and they'd need to be queryable somewhere with enough > context to make sense. To actually make sense of the numbers we'd also > need to report all the other datapoints of vacuum in some form. That's > quite a worthwile project imo - but *much* *much* more work than this. We already have "last_autovacuum" columns and such in pg_stat_tables et al, which only record the last value. My thinking regarding such numbers is that you would save histories and put them in a chart, see how they evolve with time. I doubt the individual numbers are worth much, but the trends might show something interesting. As far as I know, this is already true for most other pgstat values, with exception of things such as live_tuples which are absolute numbers rather than running counters. I agree having more vacuuming data in general is a worthwhile project, much larger than this one. Wasn't Greg Smith working on that? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
