| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Harris <harmic(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANALYZE ONLY |
| Date: | 2024-08-20 07:42:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQTq_OPhXvA+VK3zzQ-ZYa97Bg8D+JomjXTuiTs9P6Q4Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 07:52, Michael Harris <harmic(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Would such a feature be welcomed? Are there any traps I might not
> have thought of?
I think this sounds like a reasonable feature.
> 2. The existing ANALYZE command has the following structure:
>
> ANALYZE [ ( option [, ...] ) ] [ table_and_columns [, ...] ]
>
> It would be easiest to add ONLY as another option, but that
> doesn't look quite
> right to me - surely the ONLY should be attached to the table name?
> An alternative would be:
>
> ANALYZE [ ( option [, ...] ) ] [ONLY] [ table_and_columns [, ...] ]
>
> Any feedback or advice would be great.
Personally I'd prefer a new option to be added. But I agree ONLY isn't
a good name then. Maybe something like SKIP_PARTITIONS.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2024-08-20 07:44:00 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2024-08-20 07:40:13 | Re: GUC names in messages |