Re: EXPLAN redundant options

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: EXPLAN redundant options
Date: 2024-05-02 14:21:09
Message-ID: 2205542.1714659669@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:17 AM jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> explain (verbose, verbose off, analyze on, analyze off, analyze on)

> I have no desire to introduce breakage here. The implemented concept is
> actually quite common. The inconsistency with COPY seems like a minor
> point. It would influence my green field choice but not enough for
> changing long-standing behavior.

The argument for changing this would be consistency, but if you want
to argue for it on those grounds, you'd need to change *every* command
that acts that way. I really doubt EXPLAIN is the only one.

There's also a theological argument to be had about which
behavior is preferable. For my own taste, I like last-one-wins.
That's extremely common with command line switches, for instance.
So maybe we should be making our commands consistent in the other
direction.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-05-02 14:22:49 Re: Rename libpq trace internal functions
Previous Message Euler Taveira 2024-05-02 13:58:40 Re: EXPLAN redundant options