Re: after 9.2.4 patch vacuumdb -avz not analyzing all tables

Does this behavior only affect the 9.2 branch? Or was it ported to 9.1 or
9.0 or 8.4 as well?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:

> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > However I've got to say that both of those side-effects of
> > exclusive-lock abandonment seem absolutely brain dead now that I
> > see them. Why would we not bother to tell the stats collector
> > what we've done? Why would we think we should not do ANALYZE
> > when we were told to?
> >
> > Would someone care to step forward and defend this behavior?
> > Because it's not going to be there very long otherwise.
>
> I'm pretty sure that nobody involved noticed the impact on VACUUM
> ANALYZE command; all discussion was around autovacuum impact; and
> Jan argued that this was leaving things in a status quo for that,
> so I conceded the point and left it for a follow-on patch if
> someone felt the behavior needed to change. Sorry for the miss.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50BB700E.8060404@Yahoo.com
>
> As far as I'm concerned all effects on the explicit command were
> unintended and should be reverted.
>
> --
> Kevin Grittner
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>

--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.