Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZn5oX4j3KXMkQx=RN+QBgc_y3+1LjBcy_afOmJb-f0-A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago