Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2637311.1596739058@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:07 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> 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. +1 for removal. It's not clear to me that we'd ever put it back. Long-running ANALYZE snapshots are indeed a problem, but Simon's proposal upthread to just take a new one every so often seems like a much cleaner and simpler answer than having onlookers assume that it's safe to ignore ANALYZE processes. (Given that ANALYZE can invoke user-defined functions, and can be invoked from inside user transactions, any such assumption seems horribly dangerous.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: