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

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, 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 23:28:53
Message-ID: 4F5FD835.4070603@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/13/2012 06:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>  wrote:
>> What is the target=10 duration?  I think 10 is as low as we can
>> acceptably recommend.  Should we recommend they run vacuumdb twice, once
>> with default_statistics_target = 4, and another with the default?
> 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.

I agree.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-03-13 23:53:53
Subject: Chronic performance issue with Replication Failover and FSM.
Previous:From: Daniel FarinaDate: 2012-03-13 23:02:03
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

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