| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
| Date: | 2022-08-04 19:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkSDDY4yE=RfMoh6Q=HO5DeW0fh_dct9_CLVb03vi0QkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 12:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Given that the old cluster is suffering no new write
> transactions, there's probably exactly two values that are legal: one
> being the value from the old cluster, which we know, and the other
> being whatever a vacuum of that table would produce, which we don't
> know, although we do know that it's somewhere in that range.
What about autoanalyze?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-08-04 19:31:39 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-08-04 19:15:20 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |