Re: VACUUM DATABASE

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> optional, to allow backward compatibility.

This would require converting DATABASE from an unreserved keyword into
a fully reserved keyword (else the parser couldn't tell whether you
were asking for a vacuum of a single table named "database"). That
seems to me like a change moderately likely to break existing
applications ... not that I'd ever name a table, column, function,
type, or schema "database", but I'll bet somebody out there has.

I don't really see the argument that "let's make life easier for people
who didn't read the manual" trumps "let's not break applications that
chose legitimate object names".

Perhaps we need some work on the documentation instead...

regards, tom lane