| From: | Hari Krishna Sunder <hari(dot)db(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Date: | 2025-05-19 21:13:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAAeiqZ38ALsGyDF--qdoDC6wPGfbeOGioZO0EWVH8uJMeHDHAg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry didn't know about the conference.
I think it would be better to revert 9879105 since there can be a
considerable number of true empty tables that we don’t need to process.
---
Hari Krishna Sunder
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 9:51 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 01:30:48PM -0700, Hari Krishna Sunder wrote:
> > Here is the patch with a comment.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 8:53 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com
> >
> > wrote:
> >> There was a similar report for vacuumdb's new --missing-stats-only
> option.
> >> We fixed that in commit 9879105 by removing the check for reltuples !=
> 0,
> >> which means that --missing-stats-only will process empty tables.
>
> I'm wondering if we should revert commit 9879105 if we take this change,
> which solves the --missing-stats-only problem in a different way. My
> current thinking is that we should just leave it in place, if for no other
> reason than analyzing some empty tables seems unlikely to cause too much
> trouble. Thoughts?
>
> --
> nathan
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-05-19 21:17:26 | Re: regdatabase |
| Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2025-05-19 20:53:35 | Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case? |