| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to VACUUM |
| Date: | 2020-02-05 21:29:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1414019F-C6D9-4036-84E2-924051A19E7E@amazon.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/24/20, 2:14 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, I suppose we have the same problem if you disable
>> MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and the relation has no TOAST table. In any
>> case, allowing both options to be disabled shouldn't hurt anything.
>
> I've been thinking further in this area, and I'm wondering if it also
> makes sense to remove the restriction on ANALYZE with
> MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP disabled. A command like
>
> VACUUM (ANALYZE, MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP FALSE) test;
>
> could be interpreted as meaning we should vacuum the TOAST table and
> analyze the main relation. Since the word "cleanup" is present in the
> option name, this might not be too confusing.
I've attached v3 of the patch, which removes the restriction on
ANALYZE with MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP disabled.
Nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Add-MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP-and-TOAST_TABLE_CLEANUP.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-02-05 21:35:46 | Re: Do not check unlogged indexes on standby |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-02-05 21:27:14 | Re: Do not check unlogged indexes on standby |