Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"
Date: 2014-12-24 01:06:25
Message-ID: 549A1191.1060901@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/23/14, 8:54 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > Right now a lot of people just work around this with things like DO blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere in the thread that fails for commands that can't be in a transaction.
> >
>
> I use "dblink" to solve it. :-)

So... how about instead of solving this only for vacuum we create something generic? :) Possibly using Robert's background worker work?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-12-24 01:09:27 Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2014-12-23 23:41:13 Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates