From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:35:44 -0400
Message-ID: <20200807213544.GA3434@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200806010711.mzvu36zy25xer33t@alap3.anarazel.de>
On 2020-Aug-05, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm mildly against that, because I'd really like to start making use of
> the flag. Not so much for cancellations, but to avoid the drastic impact
> analyze has on bloat. In OLTP workloads with big tables, and without
> disabled cost limiting for analyze (or slow IO), the snapshot that
> analyze holds is often by far the transaction with the oldest xmin.
I pushed despite the objection because it seemed that downstream
discussion was largely favorable to the change, and there's a different
proposal to solve the bloat problem for analyze; and also:
> Only mildly against because it'd not be hard to reintroduce once we need
> it.
Thanks for the discussion!
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, jtc331@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
In-Reply-To: <20200807213544.GA3434@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox