| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-07-08 18:47:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_aW3CTn-LJ9ZPicqWCHEowm0WyLnQoShLiiTLgtj3Ba0A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:44 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> 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?
>
> I propose that once a field is set, we should leave it set until the end.
+1
Note that this patch is already behaving like that if the table only
contains dead rows.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-07-08 18:57:18 | Re: Declared but no defined functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-08 18:44:09 | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |