| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Date: | 2017-05-18 15:03:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20918.1495119832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Ugh, really? Are we sure that the current behavior is anything other
> than a bug? The idea that VACUUM foo (a) implies ANALYZE doesn't
> really sit very well with me in the first place. I'd be more inclined
> to reject that with an ERROR complaining that the column list can't be
> specified except for ANALYZE.
Yeah, that's probably more sensible. I think the rationale was "if you
specify columns you must want the ANALYZE option, so why make you type
that in explicitly?". But I can see the argument that it's likely to
confuse users who might have a weaker grasp of the semantics.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-05-18 15:11:37 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-18 14:51:59 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |