| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Date: | 2012-03-13 14:14:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20120313141443.GJ10441@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:33:09AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > To answer your specific question, I think clearing the last analyzed
> > fields should cause autovacuum to run on analyze those tables. What I
> > don't know is whether not clearing the last vacuum datetime will cause
> > the table not to be analyzed.
>
> Thank you very much for this reference. I will look into it.
I assume a missing last_analyze would trigger an auto-analyze, but I am
unclear if we assume a last_vacuum included an analyze; I think you
need to look at autovacuum.c for the details; let me know if you need
help.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-13 14:28:32 | Re: Explicitly specifying use of IN/OUT variable in PL/pgSQL functions |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-03-13 14:12:21 | Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label |