| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2019-07-09 22:12:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20190709221217.GA16854@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jul-08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:18 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I got the impression that that was determined to be the desirable
> > behavior, so I made it do that, but I'm not really happy about it
> > either. We're not too late to change the CREATE INDEX behavior, but
> > let's discuss what is it that we want.
>
> I don't think I intended to make any such determination -- which
> commit do you think established this as the canonical behavior?
No commit, just discussion in the CREATE INDEX thread.
> I propose that once a field is set, we should leave it set until the end.
Hmm, ok. In CREATE INDEX, we use the block counters multiple times. We
can leave them set until the next time we need them, I suppose.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2019-07-09 22:22:02 | Re: pg_receivewal documentation |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-09 21:45:52 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |