Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZn5oX4j3KXMkQx=RN+QBgc_y3+1LjBcy_afOmJb-f0-A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:07 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I'm mildly against that, because I'd really like to start making use of
> the flag. Not so much for cancellations, but to avoid the drastic impact
> analyze has on bloat.  In OLTP workloads with big tables, and without
> disabled cost limiting for analyze (or slow IO), the snapshot that
> analyze holds is often by far the transaction with the oldest xmin.
>
> It's not entirely trivial to fix (just ignoring it could lead to
> detoasting issues), but also not that.
>
> Only mildly against because it'd not be hard to reintroduce once we need
> it.

I think we should nuke it. It's trivial to reintroduce the flag if we
need it later, if and when somebody's willing to do the associated
work. In the meantime, it adds confusion.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago