Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:06:49 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: autovacuum: handle analyze for partitioned tables
Message-ID: <20210421230649.GA19244@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaVOx7K0BE8xpR=_FwLGEP1kJoSx+oskCsVGmuJq5h4vw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210421230649.GA19244%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Apr-09, Robert Haas wrote:

> Does this need to worry about new partitions getting attached to a
> partitioned table, or old ones getting detached? (Maybe it does
> already, not sure.)

I was pinged because this is listed as an open item.  I don't think it
is one.  Handling ATTACH/DETACH/DROP is important for overall
consistency, of course, so we should do it eventually, but the fact that
autovacuum runs analyze *at all* for partitioned tables is an enormous
step forward from it not doing so.  I think we should treat ATTACH/
DETACH/DROP handling as a further feature to be added in a future
release, not an open item to be fixed in the current one.

Now, if somebody sees a very trivial way to handle it, let's discuss it,
but *I* don't see it.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile
"You're _really_ hosed if the person doing the hiring doesn't understand
relational systems: you end up with a whole raft of programmers, none of
whom has had a Date with the clue stick."              (Andrew Sullivan)