From: | Patrik Novotny <panovotn(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFE: Make statistics robust for unplanned events |
Date: | 2021-04-22 08:57:37 |
Message-ID: | CAE_EZkg4=Mom_nJMjkonG48gaKVvBG2ZDHDx1YnjdQm9700dgg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > Right. I think the other question is how often does this happen in
> > practice - if your instance crashes often enough to make this an issue,
> > then there are probably bigger issues.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think the bigger problem there is replication failover, but that's
> also a different issue (keeping the statistics from the *standby*
> wouldn't help you much there, you'd need to replicate it from the
> primary).
>
> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: https://www.hagander.net/
> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
>
The report that I've received regarding this RFE has been triggered by
experiencing issues with long term deployments in a large scale industrial
environment. The point of this RFE is to be protected against those issues
in the future. While this doesn't seem to be a very frequent occurrence, I
wouldn't consider this a corner case not being worth attention.
If there is an expectation for the performance loss to be less of a problem
in the future, would it make sense to make this an opt-in feature until
then?
--
Patrik Novotný
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat
panovotn(at)redhat(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-22 09:08:49 | RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-04-22 08:56:14 | Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table |