| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 18:48:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0veNwAikDiuWTHcTpQHdqAHFqqgf9ycg9dZyiWR30eg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> +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.
Not to get too far from the proposal on the table of just removing
something that's been unused for a really long time, which stands on
its own merits, but if a particular ANALYZE doesn't invoke any
user-defined functions and isn't run inside a transaction, could we
skip acquiring a snapshot altogether? That's an extremely common case,
though by no means universal.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-06 19:11:27 | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-06 18:37:38 | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |