On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:05:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 03:46:10PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> It would seem preferable to call the lack of auto-analyzing after these
>>> operations a bug and back-patch a fix that injects an analyze side-effect
>>> just before their completion. It doesn't have to be smart either,
>>> analyzing things even if the created (or newly validated) index doesn't
>>> have statistics of its own isn't a problem in my book.
>
>> I agree the lack of stats may be quite annoying and cause issues, but my
>> guess is the chances of backpatching such change are about 0.000001%. We
>> have a usable 'workaround' for this - manual analyze.
>
>This doesn't seem clearly different from any other situation where
>auto-analyze doesn't react fast enough to suit you. I would not
>call it a bug, at least not without a wholesale redefinition of
>how auto-analyze is supposed to work. As a close analogy, we
>don't make any effort to force an immediate auto-analyze after
>CREATE STATISTICS.
>
True.
>I don't see anything in the CREATE STATISTICS man page pointing
>that out, either. But there's probably room for "Notes" entries
>about it in both places.
>
I agree. I'll add it to my TODO list for the next CF.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
