| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE? |
| Date: | 2026-01-27 18:16:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0s0y+tEQHiV4VWp+yopdX9hwyuS8GopHsP9YmK0peLFOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The idea of introducing explicit options such as ANALYZE (MISSING_STATS)
> and ANALYZE (MODIFIED_STATS) feels like a much cleaner direction.
> In particular, starting with MISSING_STATS as a SQL-level equivalent of
> vacuumdb --missing-stats-only seems like a well-scoped and low-risk
> first step.
> I’m happy to pivot in this direction and focus first on a clear,
> well-defined MISSING_STATS option for ANALYZE, and then revisit
> MODIFIED_STATS (possibly reusing autoanalyze-style thresholds) as a
> follow-up, once there is agreement on the semantics.
I agree with this.
Thanks!
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-01-27 18:17:38 | Re: pgsql: Prevent invalidation of newly synced replication slots. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2026-01-27 18:15:47 | Re: pgsql: Prevent invalidation of newly synced replication slots. |