On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 13:38, Michael Harris <harmic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would we want to apply that change to VACUUM too? That might be a
> bit drastic, especially if you had a multi-level inheritance structure featuring
> large tables.
I think they'd need to work the same way as for "VACUUM (ANALYZE)", it
would be strange to analyze some tables that you didn't vacuum. It's
just a much bigger pill to swallow in terms of the additional effort.
> It feels a bit like VACUUM and ANALYZE have opposite natural defaults here.
> For VACUUM it does not make much sense to vacuum only at the partitioned
> table level and not include the partitions, since it would do nothing
> - that might
> be why the existing code always adds the partitions.
Yeah, I suspect that's exactly why it was coded that way.
David
