On 2014-11-10 15:36:55 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
I don't think they mean anything without also reporting the number of buffers actually scanned and other related stats. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
