| 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 18:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 549B0B92.4@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/23/14, 8:49 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Em terça-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2014, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com <mailto:Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>> escreveu:
>
> 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?
>
>
> Interesting idea.
>
> But and what about the idea of improve the "--table" option from clients: vaccumdb and clusterdb?
Seems reasonable.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Shulgin | 2014-12-24 19:11:08 | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2014-12-24 18:35:50 | nls and server log |