On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:00:02PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
We did something similar when we removed exclusive backup mode. pg_start_backup() and pg_stop_backup() were renamed to pg_backup_start() and pg_backup_stop() to prevent folks' backup scripts from silently changing behavior after an upgrade. > 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. I like this idea. -- nathan
