| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 13:03:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYk0A7V-i4Gc9rtyN=n7Sy3rDd=9d5bkBCSDc6abhY1Cw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Apparently pg_stat* counts the recently_dead tuple under n_live_tup, else 2
> is a wrong number, where pgstattuple counts recently_dead under
> dead_tuple_count. This could be a source of confusion. If there is any
> serious work considered here, IMHO at least the numbers of the two different
> sources of tuple counters should match in terminology and actual values.
+1.
> Maybe also if pgstattuple were to include the distinction unremovable dead
> tuples vs dead tuples, a log line by vacuum encountering unremovable dead
> tuples could refer to pgstattuple for statistics.
Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-16 13:11:16 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-16 13:00:47 | Re: Core Extensions relocation |