"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > I wonder whether we shouldn't consider something more drastic, like > getting rid of the intermediate stats buffer process entirely. > > The original design for the stats communication code was based on the > premise that it's better to drop data than to make backends wait on > the stats collector. However, as things have turned out I think this > notion is a flop: the people who are using stats at all want the stats > to be reliable. We've certainly seen plenty of gripes from people who > are unhappy that backend-exit messages got dropped, and anyone who's > using autovacuum would really like the tuple update counts to be pretty > solid too. >
AFAICS if we can maintain the stats counts solid, then it may hurt performance dramatically. Think if we maintain pgstat_count_heap_insert()/pgstat_count_heap_delete() pretty well, then we get a replacement of count(*). To do so, I believe that will add another lock contention on the target table stats. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
