On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:48:50PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:58:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could > > >>> hint pgstat to create the entry instead. > > >> > > >> The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to > > >> populate its entire hashtable. > > > > > Maybe a good compromise would be only populating info for tables that > > > had dead tuples... that would eliminate any static tables, and most DBAs > > > should know that those tables are static. > > > > Hm, that definitely seems like an idea. Does the current pgstat message > > from vacuum tell how many rows it deleted? > > Hum, no.
ISTM that wouldn't be bad info to track either... how many dead tuples the last [auto]vacuum encountered. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
