| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Name for new VACUUM |
| Date: | 2001-08-02 23:48:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3B69E6C5.979D8BF3@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Maybe just call the traditional vacuum VACUUM LOCK. It was the
> > LOCK/NOLOCK idea that I think was important.
>
> Right now it's called VACUUM FULL, but I'm not particularly wedded to
> that name. Does anyone else like VACUUM LOCK? Or have an even better
> idea?
Why rename VACUUM, why not create a new command RECLAIM, or something like
that. RECLAIM does the VACUUM NOLOCK, while vacuum does the locking. The term
RECLAIM will make more sense to new comers than VACUUM, and old postgres users
already know about VACUUM.
--
5-4-3-2-1 Thunderbirds are GO!
------------------------
http://www.mohawksoft.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-02 23:51:31 | Re: Name for new VACUUM |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2001-08-02 23:42:39 | Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |