Dne 19.12.2010 23:58, Tom Lane napsal(a): > Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> writes: >> > Plus I won't have time to write the other patch for at least a week, so >> > let's see whether there are serious objections agains the current patch. > If you think this objection is not serious, you're mistaken.
I know there were problems with pgstats.stat and I/O (for example this thread discussing an I/O storm http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg01095.php). But I thought those issues were already resolved and I have not noticed any such issue recently. Am I missing something? > What is bothering me about that is this: how many of our users ever > reset the stats at all? Of those, how many reset the stats for just > some tables and not all of them? And of those, how many care about > having the database remember when they did it, at a per-table level? > I think the answer to each of those questions is "not many", and so > the fraction of our users who will get a benefit from that added > overhead is epsilon cubed. But approximately 100% of our users will > be paying the overhead. Sure, I understand that only a fraction of the users will use the patch I've proposed. That's why I'm saying that the per-database timestamp would be sufficient (although I'd prefer the per-record timestamp). regards Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
