Martin Pihlak escribió: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > You missed putting back the BUG comment that used to be there about > > this. > > This was deliberate, I did mention the condition in the comment at > the beginning of the file. This actually makes it a feature :) > > Seriously though, do you think that this is still a problem? Given > the rare occurrence of the revacuum and the fact that it is made > cheap by visibility map?
Hmm, maybe it's no longer an issue with the visibility map, yes. > I was wondering that maybe the stats subsystem shouldn't be used for > vacuum tracking at all. It maybe convenient to use, but has several > deficiencies (pobig file, lossy, no crash safety, etc). Could we move > vacuum tracking to pg_class instead? I agree that pgstats is not ideal (we've said this from the very beginning), but I doubt that updating pg_class is the answer; you'd be generating thousands of dead tuples there. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
