On 1/15/22 19:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/15/22 06:11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:40:09PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
1) If the table is a separate relation (not part of an inheritance
tree), this should make no difference. -> OK
2) If the table is using "old" inheritance, this reverts back to
pre-regression behavior. So people will keep using the old statistics
until the ANALYZE, and we need to tell them to ANALYZE or something.
3) If the table is using partitioning, it's guaranteed to be empty and
there are no stats at all. Again, we should tell people to run ANALYZE.
I think these can be mentioned in the commit message, which can end up
in the
minor release notes as a recommendation to rerun ANALYZE.
Good point. I pushed the 0002 part and added a short paragraph
suggesting ANALYZE might be necessary. I did not go into details about
the individual cases, because that'd be too much for a commit message.
Thanks for pushing 0001.
Thanks for posting the patches!
I've pushed the second part - attached are the two remaining parts. I'll
wait a bit before pushing the rebased 0001 (which goes into master
branch only). Not sure about 0002 - I'm not convinced the refactored ACL
checks are an improvement, but I'll think about it.
BTW when backpatching the first part, I had to decide what to do about
tests. The 10 & 11 branches did not have the check_estimated_rows()
function. I considered removing the tests, reworking the tests not to
need the function, or adding the function. Ultimately I added the
function, which seemed like the best option.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
