Re: Thinking about EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Thinking about EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE
Date: 2018-12-10 16:32:15
Message-ID: 25694.1544459535@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I suggest ALTER TABLE should respond to a parameter setting of ddl_dry_run
> = on, so the whole world doesn't need to rewrite its syntax to support the
> new option.

We were just busy shooting down a different suggestion of
behavior-changing GUCs. A GUC that turns all ALTERs into no-ops
sure seems like a foot-gun to me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message s.cherkashin 2018-12-10 16:38:39 Re: Psql patch to show access methods info
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2018-12-10 16:25:25 Re: Thinking about EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE