On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:44:25AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > On 2024-Nov-27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Would there be a default? > > > There would be no default. Running with no option given would raise an > > error. The point is: you want to break scripts currently running > > --analyze-in-stages so that they can make a choice of which of these two > > modes to run. Your proposal (as I understand it) is to remove the > > --analyze-in-stages option and add two other options. My proposal is to > > keep --analyze-in-stages, but require it to have a specifier of which > > mode to run. Both achieve what you want, but I think mine achieves it > > in a cleaner way. > > I do not like the idea of breaking existing upgrade scripts, > especially not by requiring them to use a parameter that older > vacuumdb versions will reject. That makes it impossible to have a > script that is version independent. I really doubt that there is any > usability improvement to be had here that's worth that. > > How about causing "--analyze-in-stages" (as currently spelled) to > be a no-op? We could keep the behavior available under some other > name.
Uh, I guess we could do that, but we should emit something like "--analyze-in-stages option ignored". -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means "Am I going to die soon?"
