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

From James Coleman
Subject Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Date
Msg-id CAAaqYe-uWxk4KFFwET99COfCj9czi6ZFJGQTvi3bxw04C-ek6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimising compactify_tuples()