Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGodk-0003hG-9p for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:46:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGodj-0007xR-1m for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:46:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGodi-0007xK-M3 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:46:30 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hGodg-0000MQ-5j for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:46:29 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x3HHkHRL015042; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:46:17 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Masahiko Sawada cc: Andres Freund , Robert Haas , Kyotaro HORIGUCHI , "Bossart, Nathan" , Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing In-reply-to: References: <15751.1555256860@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16814.1555348381@sss.pgh.pa.us> <23885.1555357618@sss.pgh.pa.us> <28991.1555376836@sss.pgh.pa.us> <30116.1555430496@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190416161019.esqg4zj3xm3kjyxy@alap3.anarazel.de> <31782.1555433074@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7519.1555444815@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Masahiko Sawada message dated "Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:38:11 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <15040.1555523177.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:46:17 -0400 Message-ID: <15041.1555523177@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Masahiko Sawada writes: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:00 AM Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm thinking that we really need to upgrade vacuum's reporting totals >>> so that it accounts in some more-honest way for pre-existing dead >>> line pointers. The patch as it stands has made the reporting even more >>> confusing, rather than less so. > Or, how about reporting the vacuumed tuples and line pointers we > separately? It might be too detailed but since with this patch we > delete either only tuples or only line pointers, it's more accurate. Yeah, if we wanted to expose these complications more directly, we could think about adding or changing the main counters. I was wondering about whether we should have it report "x bytes and y line pointers freed", rather than counting tuples per se. regards, tom lane