Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why we're so glibly rejecting Dan's original > proposal. Sure, adjusting pg_upgrade when we whack around > pg_statistic is work, but who ever said that a workable in-place > upgrade facility would be maintenance-free? We're operating under > a number of restrictions imposed by the need to be pg_upgrade- > compatible, and this doesn't strike me as a particularly severe > one by comparison -- we can always arrange to NOT migrate > statistics between incompatible versions; that doesn't mean that > we shouldn't migrate them when they ARE compatible. Also, unlike > the alternatives thus far proposed, Dan's idea actually fixes the > problem. In case it got lost with my various timings, I agree with Robert on all of the above. The three-minute downtime for pg_upgrade to upgrade our multi-TB databases is *very* impressive; but I think we lose bragging rights if we follow that up with -- oh, but the database isn't really fully *usable* until you run a one-hour analyze afterward. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
