On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >> I agree with you here, too. I stopped short of allowing customers to >> explicitly provide per-table options, so the example you provided wouldn’t >> work here. This is more applicable for something like the following: >> >> VACUUM (FREEZE, VERBOSE) foo, bar (a); >> >> In this case, the FREEZE and VERBOSE options are used for both tables. >> However, we have a column list specified for ‘bar’, and the ANALYZE option >> is implied when we specify a column list. So when we process ‘bar’, we need >> to apply the ANALYZE option, but we do not need it for ‘foo’. For now, that >> is all that this per-table options variable is used for. > > Hm. One argument can be made here: having a column list defined in one > of the tables implies that ANALYZE is enforced for all the relations > listed instead of doing that only on the relations listing columns.
It seems to me that it's not good idea to forcibly set ANALYZE in spite of ANALYZE option is not specified. One reason is that it would make us difficult to grep it from such as server log. I think It's better to use the same vacuum option to the all listed relations. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
