Re: (WIP) VACUUM REWRITE - CLUSTER by ctid

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: (WIP) VACUUM REWRITE - CLUSTER by ctid
Date: 2009-10-26 02:54:17
Message-ID: 20091026115417.DBA5.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> I got the impression that replacing VACUUM FULL is the most popular
> opinion. I like VACUUM REWRITE myself, except that it would require
> making REWRITE a reserved keyword.

My next proposal for the syntex is "VACUUM (options) table_name".
Since "options" are quoted by '(' and ')', we can add new options
without adding them into reserved keywords.

The traditional vacuum syntax:
VACUUM FULL FREEZE VERBOSE ANALYZE table_name (columns);
will be:
VACUUM (FULL, FREEZE, VERBOSE, ANALYZE) table_name (columns);

I think the syntax is consistent with existing syntex of "EXPLAIN (...)".
We can choose any keyword for the new "rewrite" version.
For example:
* VACUUM ( REWRITE )
* VACUUM ( FULL [ INPLACE | REPLACE ] )

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2009-10-26 02:57:25 Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-26 02:48:02 Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT