| From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |
| Date: | 2020-09-08 17:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe-uWxk4KFFwET99COfCj9czi6ZFJGQTvi3bxw04C-ek6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 8:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I pushed despite the objection because it seemed that downstream
> > discussion was largely favorable to the change, and there's a different
> > proposal to solve the bloat problem for analyze; and also:
>
> Note that this quasi-related patch has pretty thoroughly hijacked
> the CF entry for James' original docs patch proposal. The cfbot
> thinks that that's the latest patch in the original thread, and
> unsurprisingly is failing to apply it.
>
> Since the discussion was all over the place, I'm not sure whether
> there's still a live docs patch proposal or not; but if so, somebody
> should repost that patch (and go back to the original thread title).
I replied to the original email thread with reposted patches.
James
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-09-08 17:37:54 | Re: Optimising compactify_tuples() |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-09-08 17:27:06 | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers |