On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 09:29:09PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 6/2/20 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Why?
Because you often have to go backwards to religitate things in the
patch, rather than opening with the design issues. Our TODO list is
very clear about this:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo
Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
