Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade
Date: 2017-12-07 19:09:47
Message-ID: 15532.1512673787@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Yeah, there's that. But the rate of change in pg_statistic hasn't been
>> *that* large. Alvaro might be right that we can design some transmission
>> procedure that allows stats to be forward-migrated when compatible and
>> dropped when not.

> Well, if it's dropped, I think we need to make sure that users are aware
> of that going in and that's why I was suggesting a switch. If you've
> got a better idea for that, great, but having certain pg_upgrade
> migrations require running ANALYZE and some migrations not require it is
> something we need to make users *very* clear about. No, I don't think a
> note in the release notes is really enough..

Seems like we could make this reasonably transparent if pg_upgrade
continues to emit an analyze script that you're supposed to run
afterwards. It just has to vary how much that script does.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2017-12-07 19:13:31 Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-12-07 19:08:57 Re: plpgsql test layout