From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means
In-reply-to: <3d250597-384e-c5f4-7533-b513e366888f@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <16db4468-edfa-830a-f921-39a50498e77e@2ndquadrant.com>
 <19990.1500936945@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3d250597-384e-c5f4-7533-b513e366888f@2ndquadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:33:28 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7085.1500995043.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:04:03 -0400
Message-ID: <7087.1500995043@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7/25/17 12:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the planner basically assumes that reltuples is the live
>> tuple count, so maybe we'd better change VACUUM to get in step.

> Attached is a patch that (I think) does just that. The disagreement was 
> caused by VACUUM treating recently dead tuples as live, while ANALYZE 
> treats both of those as dead.

> At first I was worried that this will negatively affect plans in the 
> long-running transaction, as it will get underestimates (due to 
> reltuples not including rows it can see). But that's a problem we 
> already have anyway, you just need to run ANALYZE in the other session.

This definitely will have some impact on plans, at least in cases where
there's a significant number of unvacuumable dead tuples.  So I think
it's a bit late for v10, and I wouldn't want to back-patch at all.
Please add to the next commitfest.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers