| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Date: | 2017-05-19 03:03:51 |
| Message-ID: | 30717.1495163031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
> On 5/18/17, 6:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Fine for me as well. I would suggest to split the patch into two parts
>> to ease review then:
>> - Rework this error handling for one relation.
>> - The main patch.
> I’d be happy to do so, but I think part one would be pretty small, and almost all of the same code needs to be changed in the main patch anyway. I do not foresee a huge impact on review-ability either way. If others disagree, I can split it up.
Yeah, I'm dubious that that's really necessary. If the change proves
bigger than you're anticipating, maybe it's worth a two-step approach,
but I share your feeling that it probably isn't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-05-19 03:17:54 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-19 03:00:40 | Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |