On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 13:38, Michael Harris <har...@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
