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
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 |