Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
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 17:25:08
Message-ID: 20200602172508.GC16329@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-06-02 17:45:12 Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-06-02 17:14:17 Re: what can go in root.crt ?