Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 13:14:12 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Mircea Cadariu <cadariu.mircea@gmail.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	"Zechman, Derek S" <Derek.S.Zechman@snapon.com>,
	Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: analyze-in-stages post upgrade questions
Message-ID: <aJObdBmd9H5YAdW1@nathan>
References: <PH0PR04MB8294E796D6297D4E3BE4EFB6C049A@PH0PR04MB8294.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <08d943a83590308cbb9be594d80b4e19ca80e08e.camel@cybertec.at>
 <2505eef1-b6aa-4518-baff-861a2e6a507b@gmail.com>
 <b65126bf381d4b41f561afe691000b77ac7b8cc2.camel@cybertec.at>
 <a018a729-9b18-444f-baed-be0d6d8ecb80@gmail.com>
 <2c1f1834107045dfa8b32417771b56bab0cffc56.camel@cybertec.at>
 <2cce9851-327a-4b1a-ab8e-531c2f92532b@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwEvwpydO7hjnB51Q2zgS0ydv31X4HCFLNzMeqLr=poS8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <9c9cb744-b8c7-4d75-acad-595b3faba187@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwEj8PCk1OVveJ_F1sj_COrV95N-mfu_tLUn4gdcAM24kA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHGQGwEj8PCk1OVveJ_F1sj_COrV95N-mfu_tLUn4gdcAM24kA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aJObdBmd9H5YAdW1%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:25:53PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 1:01 PM Mircea Cadariu <cadariu.mircea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Overall, I like the change. But I have one question: should this be treated as
>> a bug fix that we back-patch to supported branches, or is it more of
>> an improvement that should only go into master?
>>
>> I reckon it might make sense to back-patch it to previous versions, as users might not upgrade always to the latest version.
> 
> I understand your point. But on second thought, since the patch changes
> behavior, I'm leaning toward treating it as an improvement, so it should
> only go to master...

I also am leaning towards treating this as v19 material.  It's a nontrivial
behavior change, and this option is useful for major version upgrades,
which is an area that we really don't want to surprise users too much.
Furthermore, auto-analyze doesn't process partitioned tables, either, so
this introduces a bit of divergence.  (I'd love to see that project picked
up again someday.  Perhaps I will take a gander...)

-- 
nathan