On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 5/27/20 7:27 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> Would you propose we just error out in that case, or should we > >> silently enable the required option, or disable the conflicting > >> option? > >> > > The same thing we do today...ignore options that require analyze if analyze > > is not specified. There are no other options documented that are dependent > > with options besides than analyze. The docs say timing defaults to on, its > > only when explicitly specified instead of being treated as a default that > > the user message appears. All the GUCs are doing is changing the default. > > > Yes, the patch handles this case the way you describe. In fact, the > patch doesn't (or shouldn't) change any behavior at all.
I think it would have been helpful if an email explaining this idea for discussion would have been posted before a patch was generated and posted. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
