Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date: 2012-03-13 22:40:53
Message-ID: 4F5F86A5020000250004627C@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
 
> I'm not sure why we're so glibly rejecting Dan's original
> proposal.  Sure, adjusting pg_upgrade when we whack around
> pg_statistic is work, but who ever said that a workable in-place
> upgrade facility would be maintenance-free?  We're operating under
> a number of restrictions imposed by the need to be pg_upgrade-
> compatible, and this doesn't strike me as a particularly severe
> one by comparison -- we can always arrange to NOT migrate
> statistics between incompatible versions; that doesn't mean that
> we shouldn't migrate them when they ARE compatible.  Also, unlike
> the alternatives thus far proposed, Dan's idea actually fixes the
> problem.
 
In case it got lost with my various timings, I agree with Robert on
all of the above.  The three-minute downtime for pg_upgrade to
upgrade our multi-TB databases is *very* impressive; but I think we
lose bragging rights if we follow that up with -- oh, but the
database isn't really fully *usable* until you run a one-hour
analyze afterward.
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-03-13 22:44:20
Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2012-03-13 22:37:04
Subject: INHERIT vs INHERITS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group