Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:35:44 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Message-ID: <20200807213544.GA3434@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200806010711.mzvu36zy25xer33t@alap3.anarazel.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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