| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2026-01-30 05:28:03 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=eFRiQs6hZoPa+NrL8zUBjUF=BoSsLZOV-xG+LaRuL+5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> > But before we get there, we have to contend with the fact that what
> constitutes "missing" has already
> > subtly changed since v18, that change is not yet reflected in vacuumdb,
> and ideally the definition
> > would change back to the v18 definition before v19 feature freeze, but
> that isn't guaranteed.
>
> OK, I am confused a bit about the details of this point, but it looks
> like this work is happening
> in another thread, maybe [0] ?
>
Yes, but that thread was about to close and it was in the process of being
moved to [1] as I was writing that message. The only thing to keep in mind
is that if the effort in [1] stalls, then the definition of missing in
vacuumdb will likely get marginally more complex. I hope that doesn't
happen, and I believe that it won't, but I don't want anybody blind-sided
if it does.
So with regards to this thread, vacuumdb using this new option will be
> out of scope. This could
> be handled in a future thread.
>
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-01-30 05:30:44 | Re: Document NULL |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2026-01-30 05:25:41 | Re: pg_upgrade: optimize replication slot caught-up check |