From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish |
Date: | 2007-07-24 19:49:33 |
Message-ID: | 15228.1185306573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>>> What really has to happen is it should run analyze on all tables
>>>> together in a single transaction and commit all the new stats together.
>>>> Out-of-sync stats can be worse than out-of-date stats.
>>
>>> One problem with that is that it will keep the locks on each table until
>>> the end of all analyzes.
>>
>> Yeah, that seems entirely infeasible, even if I agreed with the premise
>> which I don't think I do.
> Well that's just what ANALYZE with no arguments at all does.
Not unless you wrap it in a transaction block --- otherwise it does a
transaction per table. If you try wrapping it in a transaction block
on a production system, you'll soon find you don't like it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | imad | 2007-07-24 19:58:52 | Re: Design: Escort info from WHERE clause to executor? |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-07-24 19:49:21 | Re: pgcrypto & strong ciphers limitation |