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

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Ugh, really? Are we sure that the current behavior is anything other
>> than a bug?

Point was raised already upthread by me ince, which is what lead me to
the reasoning of my last argument:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31695.1494471378@sss.pgh.pa.us
And, like you, I saw that as an oversight.

> 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.

I am fine with an ERROR if a column list is specified without ANALYZE
listed in the options. But that should happen as well for the case
where only one relation is listed.
--
Michael