Horton

Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2020-09-08T17:27:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 8:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I pushed despite the objection because it seemed that downstream
> > discussion was largely favorable to the change, and there's a different
> > proposal to solve the bloat problem for analyze; and also:
>
> Note that this quasi-related patch has pretty thoroughly hijacked
> the CF entry for James' original docs patch proposal.  The cfbot
> thinks that that's the latest patch in the original thread, and
> unsurprisingly is failing to apply it.
>
> Since the discussion was all over the place, I'm not sure whether
> there's still a live docs patch proposal or not; but if so, somebody
> should repost that patch (and go back to the original thread title).

I replied to the original email thread with reposted patches.

James

Commits

  1. Call out vacuum considerations in create index docs

  2. Document concurrent indexes waiting on each other

  3. snapshot scalability: Don't compute global horizons while building snapshots.

  4. Remove PROC_IN_ANALYZE and derived flags

  5. Improve performance of get_actual_variable_range with recently-dead tuples.