| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Stuart Brooks" <stuartb(at)cat(dot)co(dot)za>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
| Date: | 2008-04-04 05:40:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4355.1207287635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I didn't think it merited back-patching. It's strictly cosmetic in
>> terms of being about what VACUUM VERBOSE prints, no?
> Umm.. Whatever we decide on the fix, I think we should backpatch it to
> 8.3 because I am worried that someone way get completely confused with
> the current vacuum report,
"Somebody might misread an optional report" doesn't seem to me to be on
the same risk level as "we might destabilize a stable release". The
policy of this project is that we only put nontrivial bug fixes into
back branches, and I don't think this item qualifies ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Velevitch | 2008-04-04 05:44:44 | Re: pg_dump ignoring without oids |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-04 05:33:14 | Re: pg_dump ignoring without oids |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-04-04 05:43:30 | Re: best way for export gram.y symbols |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2008-04-04 05:18:37 | Re: modules |