| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |
| Date: | 2020-08-06 18:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | 2637311.1596739058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:07 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Only mildly against because it'd not be hard to reintroduce once we need
>> it.
> I think we should nuke it. It's trivial to reintroduce the flag if we
> need it later, if and when somebody's willing to do the associated
> work. In the meantime, it adds confusion.
+1 for removal. It's not clear to me that we'd ever put it back.
Long-running ANALYZE snapshots are indeed a problem, but Simon's proposal
upthread to just take a new one every so often seems like a much cleaner
and simpler answer than having onlookers assume that it's safe to ignore
ANALYZE processes. (Given that ANALYZE can invoke user-defined functions,
and can be invoked from inside user transactions, any such assumption
seems horribly dangerous.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-06 18:48:52 | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-06 18:25:27 | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |