Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It seems to me that it's not good idea to forcibly set ANALYZE in
>>> spite of ANALYZE option is not specified. One reason is that it would
>>> make us difficult to grep it from such as server log. I think It's
>>> better to use the same vacuum option to the all listed relations.
>>
>> Even now, if you use VACUUM without listing ANALYZE directly, with
>> relation listing a set of columns, then ANALYZE is implied.
>
> Oh.. I'd missed that behavior. Thanks!
>
>> I agree
>> with your point that the same options should be used for all the
>> relations, and it seems to me that if at least one relation listed has
>> a column list, then ANALYZE should be implied for all relations.
>
> +1

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company