Hi,
> > > > Oh, I haven't considered inherited tables. That seems right, the > statistics of the children are not updated when the parent is analyzed. > > > >> > >> Now, the point I was worried about was what if the changes in child > >> tables (*_part1, *_part2) are much more than in tbl1? In such cases, > >> we may not invalidate child rel entries, so how will logical > >> replication behave for updates/deletes on child tables? There may not > >> be any problem here but it is better to do some analysis of such cases > >> to see how it behaves. > > > > > > I also haven't observed any specific issues. In the end, when the user > (or autovacuum) does ANALYZE on the child, it is when the statistics are > updated for the child. > > > > Right, I also think that should be the behavior but I have not > verified it. However, I think it should be easy to verify if > autovacuum updates the stats for child tables when we operate on only > one of such tables and whether that will invalidate the cache for our > case. > > I already added a regression test for this with the title: # Testcase start: SUBSCRIPTION CAN UPDATE THE INDEX IT USES AFTER ANALYZE - INHERITED TABLE I realized that the comments on the test case were confusing, and clarified those. Attached the new version also rebased onto the master branch. Thanks, Onder
v10_0001_use_index_on_subs_when_pub_rep_ident_full.patch
Description: Binary data
