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
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 |