Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:01:50 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
	jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Statistics Import and Export
Message-ID: <Z0dQfoMNfXI1TMHa@momjian.us>
References: <202411271557.gaewckwu64dm@alvherre.pgsql>
 <1869337.1732725865@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1869337.1732725865@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z0dQfoMNfXI1TMHa%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:44:25AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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  <bruce@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?"