Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish
Date: 2007-07-24 17:16:12
Message-ID: 12749.1185297372@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> What really has to happen is it should run analyze on all tables
>> together in a single transaction and commit all the new stats together.
>> Out-of-sync stats can be worse than out-of-date stats.

> One problem with that is that it will keep the locks on each table until
> the end of all analyzes.

Yeah, that seems entirely infeasible, even if I agreed with the premise
which I don't think I do.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-07-24 17:44:14 Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-24 17:09:06 Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish