| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: ANALYZE (MODIFIED_STATS) using autoanalyze thresholds |
| Date: | 2026-02-17 17:35:43 |
| Message-ID: | aZSm77WEh8pxQYtf@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 04:12:58PM +0530, VASUKI M wrote:
> I would greatly appreciate thoughts before working on a prototype patch.
At the risk of substantially expanding the scope of these patches, I wonder
if a better long-term approach would be to first centralize the
autovacuum/autoanalyze prioritization code and share it via a system view
that vacuumdb could use in place of the giant query for
--missing-stats-only. That would also give users visibility into
auto{vacuum,analyze}'s decisions. TBH I'm not totally sold on the idea of
giving ANALYZE more options for this stuff, if for no other reason than I'm
not really following the concrete use-cases, but I wouldn't say I'm
mortally opposed to it.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2026-02-17 17:40:59 | Re: Headerscheck support for meson |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2026-02-17 17:32:49 | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 |