| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2019-07-08 18:44:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob_YTDVU=Z9CmQj6uP6hcuY77Bs1YFT+fy0Ayc6_Qzn1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:18 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I got the impression that that was determined to be the desirable
> behavior, so I made it do that, but I'm not really happy about it
> either. We're not too late to change the CREATE INDEX behavior, but
> let's discuss what is it that we want.
I don't think I intended to make any such determination -- which
commit do you think established this as the canonical behavior?
I propose that once a field is set, we should leave it set until the end.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-07-08 18:47:01 | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-07-08 18:39:44 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |