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 <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm pretty sure that nobody involved noticed the impact on VACUUM > 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.8060...@yahoo.com > > 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-ad...@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > -- To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
