From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2017-12-07 19:09:47 |
Message-ID: | 15532.1512673787@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Yeah, there's that. But the rate of change in pg_statistic hasn't been
>> *that* large. Alvaro might be right that we can design some transmission
>> procedure that allows stats to be forward-migrated when compatible and
>> dropped when not.
> Well, if it's dropped, I think we need to make sure that users are aware
> of that going in and that's why I was suggesting a switch. If you've
> got a better idea for that, great, but having certain pg_upgrade
> migrations require running ANALYZE and some migrations not require it is
> something we need to make users *very* clear about. No, I don't think a
> note in the release notes is really enough..
Seems like we could make this reasonably transparent if pg_upgrade
continues to emit an analyze script that you're supposed to run
afterwards. It just has to vary how much that script does.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-12-07 19:13:31 | Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-12-07 19:08:57 | Re: plpgsql test layout |