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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-03-13 23:53:53|
|Subject: Chronic performance issue with Replication Failover and FSM.|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-03-13 23:02:03|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics|