Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:33:46 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: yuzuko <yuzukohosoya@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
	David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze)
Message-ID: <20210407033346.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: 
 <CAKkQ50-C+MAJ4rWHBTfkDuD4cqc_sdixQtiNzirPMV+XqZndFA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210407033346.GA3434%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Apr-07, yuzuko wrote:

> I'm working on fixing the patch according to the comments.
> I'll send it as soon as I can.

Thanks, I've been giving it a look too.

> I've been thinking about traditional inheritance, I realized that we
> need additional
> handling to support them because unlike declarative partitioning,
> parents may have
> some rows in the case of traditional inheritance as Alvaro mentioned.
> So I think we should support only declarative partitioning in this
> patch for now,
> but what do you think?

Yeah, not fixable at present I think.

> I'm not sure but if we can solve this matter at low cost by using the
> shared memory stats patch, should we wait for the patch?

Let's do that for 15.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                            39°49'30"S 73°17'W
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
(Hobbes)