| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN |
| Date: | 2020-06-02 19:29:09 |
| Message-ID: | 54e92035-d7d1-dbf3-4cf5-f783d7a576f7@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/2/20 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 5/27/20 7:27 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>>> Would you propose we just error out in that case, or should we
>>>> silently enable the required option, or disable the conflicting
>>>> option?
>>>>
>>> The same thing we do today...ignore options that require analyze if analyze
>>> is not specified. There are no other options documented that are dependent
>>> with options besides than analyze. The docs say timing defaults to on, its
>>> only when explicitly specified instead of being treated as a default that
>>> the user message appears. All the GUCs are doing is changing the default.
>>
>>
>> Yes, the patch handles this case the way you describe. In fact, the
>> patch doesn't (or shouldn't) change any behavior at all.
>
> I think it would have been helpful if an email explaining this idea for
> discussion would have been posted before a patch was generated and
> posted.
Why?
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-02 20:51:16 | Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2020-06-02 19:28:48 | Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN |