On 2024-Nov-27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > If you want to avoid both the surprise and confusion factor mentioned before,
> > maybe what's needed is to *remove* --analyze-in-stages, and replace it with
> > --analyze-missing-in-stages and --analyze-all-in-stages (with the clear warning
> > about what --analyze-all-in-stages can do to your system if you already have
> > statistics).
> >
> > That goes with the "immediate breakage that you see right away is better than
> > silently doing the unexpected where you might not notice the problem until much
> > later".
> >
> > That might trade some of that surprise and confusion for annoyance instead, but
> > going forward that might be a clearer path?
>
> Oh, so remove --analyze-in-stages and have it issue a suggestion, and
> make two versions --- yeah, that would work too.
Maybe not remove the option, but add a required parameter:
--analyze-in-stages=all / missing
That way, if the option is missing, the user can adapt the command line
according to need.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"How amazing is that? I call it a night and come back to find that a bug has
been identified and patched while I sleep." (Robert Davidson)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-03/msg00378.php
