Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:47:58 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump --with-* options
Message-ID: <aFrWvlsWwE92Mcpr@nathan>
References: <7cc52488-f876-4ad3-affd-6e4b0ef0cb09@eisentraut.org>
 <aEMLzPQtjRbj2R7X@nathan>
 <CA+TgmoactJEUHeXuxHLKNXHzm6-XrQFigPur-4nHTMFSiSRkiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aErpuM6RXSlK1FBW@nathan>
 <7bf0246542713d80f12c738c1d365d1365750c18.camel@j-davis.com>
 <5e398522803da9bf3f9fc33ca43084ec21ab0fcd.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aFLenfMRS9jFINxq@nathan>
 <031558c60e84362898922caa6a90587e7fdf2a57.camel@j-davis.com>
 <CA+TgmoYW4ycbzZehdS9nOw60ZdtwzWZ-qoVpBe3+QCpeBxvKug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYW4ycbzZehdS9nOw60ZdtwzWZ-qoVpBe3+QCpeBxvKug@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aFrWvlsWwE92Mcpr%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 01:38:10PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I had thought we had a consensus that pg_upgrade should preserve stats
> but regularly pg_dump shouldn't include them; perhaps I misunderstood
> or that changed.

I think it's a bit of both.  I skimmed through the past discussions and
found that not only was there a rough consensus in 2024 that stats _should_
be on by default [0], but also that an updated vote tally didn't show much
of a consensus at all [1].  Like you, I thought we had pretty much closed
that door, but the aforementioned analysis along with further discussion
has me convinced that we might want to reconsider [2].

[0] https://postgr.es/m/e16cd9caf4f5229a152d318d70b4d323a03e3539.camel@j-davis.com
[1] https://postgr.es/m/aFCIB1AwXuNzxHXX%40nathan
[2] https://postgr.es/m/aFC9rWSeFz7c07uI%40nathan

-- 
nathan