Does this behavior only affect the 9.2 branch? Or was it ported to 9.1 or 9.0 or 8.4 as well?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm pretty sure that nobody involved noticed the impact on VACUUM
> However I've got to say that both of those side-effects of
> exclusive-lock abandonment seem absolutely brain dead now that I
> see them. Why would we not bother to tell the stats collector
> what we've done? Why would we think we should not do ANALYZE
> when we were told to?
>
> Would someone care to step forward and defend this behavior?
> Because it's not going to be there very long otherwise.
ANALYZE command; all discussion was around autovacuum impact; and
Jan argued that this was leaving things in a status quo for that,
so I conceded the point and left it for a follow-on patch if
someone felt the behavior needed to change. Sorry for the miss.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50BB700E.8060404@xxxxxxxxx
As far as I'm concerned all effects on the explicit command were
unintended and should be reverted.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
