On 6/2/20 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
Why? -- Vik Fearing
