Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Gilles Darold <gilles(at)migops(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only
Date: 2022-03-09 21:10:33
Message-ID: 20220309211032.GC28503@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> > Maybe it's clearer to write this with =ANY() / != ALL() ?
> > See 002.
>
> I have applied your changes and produced a new version v3 of the patch,
> thanks for the improvements. The patch have been added to commitfest
> interface, see here https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3587/

I wondered whether my patches were improvements, and it occurred to me that
your patch didn't fail if the specified schema didn't exist. That's arguably
preferable, but that's the pre-existing behavior for tables. So I think the
behavior of my patch is more consistent.

$ ./src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb -h /tmp -d postgres --table foo
vacuumdb: vacuuming database "postgres"
2022-03-09 15:04:06.922 CST client backend[25540] vacuumdb ERROR: relation "foo" does not exist at character 60

$ ./src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb -h /tmp -d postgres --schema foo
vacuumdb: vacuuming database "postgres"
2022-03-09 15:02:59.926 CST client backend[23516] vacuumdb ERROR: schema "foo" does not exist at character 335

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-03-09 21:15:51 Re: role self-revocation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-03-09 21:01:40 Re: role self-revocation