Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> What I've been thinking about for that one before is if we could just
> invent a protocol (shmq based maybe) whereby autovacuum can ask the stats
> collector for a single table or index stat. If autovacuum never needs to
> see a consistent view between multiple tables, I would think that's going
> to be a win in a lot of cases.

Perhaps.  Autovac might run through quite a few tables before it finds
one in need of processing, though, so I'm not quite certain this would
yield such great benefits in isolation.

> However, when it comes to the stats system, I'd say that on any busy system
> (which would be the ones to care about), the stats structures are still
> going to be *written* a lot more than they are read.

Uh, what?  The stats collector doesn't write those files at all except
on-demand.
        regards, tom lane