On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:22:29AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > Makes sense. This does beg the question - what happens if a column is left > with a lower statistics target than what would be applied during an > analyze, but one is present? I don´t see where the statistics target is > saved anywhere. Can we start recording that piece of data and teach > analyze in stages to just never go backwards - reporting any it had to skip > to adhere to that rule. Seems like a better policy than missing-only.
That would involve changing the behavior of an existing option, which has thus far been strongly opposed [0], for what strikes me as a reasonably uncommon situation. Plus, --missing-stats-only may be useful in other situations. [0] https://postgr.es/m/Z6KKHX9PZkB19lAK%40nathan -- nathan
