On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:54:57PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:49:33PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Back in the discussion of this someone had mentioned capturing all the > > info that you'd get from a vacuum verbose; dead tuples, etc. What do > > people think about that? In particular I think it'd be handy to know how > > many pages vacuum wanted in the FSM vs. how many it got; this would make > > it much easier for people to ensure that the FSM is large enough. Using > > the functions that let you query the FSM won't work because they can't > > tell you if there are pages that should have been in the FSM but didn't > > make it in. > > That's a good idea too, but in that case I'd vote for putting it into a > seperate table/view and not with the stats relating to number of seq > scans for example.
Agreed; it doesn't really make much sense to me to be putting info about vacuum in the stat view anyway; ISTM it should be a stand-alone view. -- 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
