Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> 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..
Seems like we could make this reasonably transparent if pg_upgrade
continues to emit an analyze script that you're supposed to run
afterwards. It just has to vary how much that script does.
regards, tom lane
