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

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: 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 22:30:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmobmippViojC5ghJxBH_aZgm_7wdEy-tDEtQu-sLMnoXcQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2012-03-13 22:33:29
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-03-13 22:23:33
Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux

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