On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:10 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:21 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@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 <robertmh...@gmail.com> > > wrote in > > <ca+tgmobk1ngid9pxs7g8rfqdh+o1x4yyl+vmqtav7i6m-xn...@mail.gmail.com> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:56 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
