Tom,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > If we go down that route, since this makes a pretty serious difference
> > in terms of what the user has to deal with post-pg_upgrade, I'd suggest
> > we require an additional option for the user to pass when stats aren't
> > going to be migrated, so they are aware of that.
>
> -1 ... you are forgetting that a lot of systems wrap pg_upgrade in some
> sort of vendor-supplied upgrade script. Nanny switches don't help;
> the vendors will just start passing them automatically.
That really depends on the packagers.
> > Of course, this might end up having an entirely different effect: it
> > might mean that we're suddenly a lot shier about changing the stats in a
> > backwards-incompatible way, just as we now are basically stuck with the
> > existing on-disk heap format..
>
> Yeah, there's that. But the rate of change in pg_statistic hasn't been
> *that* large. Alvaro might be right that we can design some transmission
> procedure that allows stats to be forward-migrated when compatible and
> dropped when not.
Well, if it's dropped, I think we need to make sure that users are aware
of that going in and that's why I was suggesting a switch. If you've
got a better idea for that, great, but having certain pg_upgrade
migrations require running ANALYZE and some migrations not require it is
something we need to make users *very* clear about. No, I don't think a
note in the release notes is really enough..
Thanks!
Stephen
