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?
--
Vik Fearing
