On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:47 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:10 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:21 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > We now have several syntax elements seemingly the same but behave
> > > different way.
> > >
> > > At Thu, 16 May 2019 15:29:36 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
<CA+TgmobK1ngid9Pxs7g8RFQDH+O1X4yyL+vMQtaV7i6m-Xn0rw@mail.gmail.com>
> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:56 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yes. Thanks for the comment!
> > > > > Attached is the updated version of the patch.
> > > > > It adds such common rule.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how much value it really has to define
> > > > opt_boolean_or_string_or_numeric. It saves 1 line of code in each of
> > > > 3 places, but costs 6 lines of code to have it.
> > >
> > > ANALYZE (options) desn't accept 1/0 but only accepts true/false
> > > or on/off. Why are we going to make VACUUM differently?
> > >
> > > And the documentation for ANALYZE doesn't mention the change.
> >
> > Commit 41b54ba78e seems to affect also ANALYZE syntax.
> > If it's intentional, IMO we should apply the attached patch.
> > Thought?
> >
>
> +1
> Thank you for the patch!
I found that tab-completion also needs to be updated for ANALYZE
boolean options. I added that change for tab-completion into
the patch and am thinking to apply the attached patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
