Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8904.1151381102@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values
Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values |
Список | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > + /* last_anl_tuples must never exceed n_live_tuples */ If we actually believe the above statement, it seems like your patch to pgstat_recv_tabstat() opens a new issue: with that patch, it is possible for pgstat_recv_tabstat() to decrease n_live_tuples, and therefore a clamp needs to be applied in pgstat_recv_tabstat() too. No? The reason I didn't patch it myself is that I'm not quite clear on what *should* be happening here. What effect should a large delete have on the ANALYZE threshold, exactly? You could argue that a deletion potentially changes the statistics (by omission), and therefore inserts, updates, and deletes should equally count +1 towards the analyze threshold. I don't think we are implementing that though. If we want to do it that way, I suspect last_anl_tuples as currently defined is not the right comparison point. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: