On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 5/27/20 7:27 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> >> Would you propose we just error out in that case, or should we
> >> silently enable the required option, or disable the conflicting
> >> option?
> >>
> > The same thing we do today...ignore options that require analyze if analyze
> > is not specified. There are no other options documented that are dependent
> > with options besides than analyze. The docs say timing defaults to on, its
> > only when explicitly specified instead of being treated as a default that
> > the user message appears. All the GUCs are doing is changing the default.
>
>
> Yes, the patch handles this case the way you describe. In fact, the
> patch doesn't (or shouldn't) change any behavior at all.
I think it would have been helpful if an email explaining this idea for
discussion would have been posted before a patch was generated and
posted.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee