| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Date: | 2022-12-29 20:29:15 |
| Message-ID: | 599741.1672345755@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:22:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
>>> VACUUM (UPDATE_DATABASE_STATS {yes,no,only})
>>>> VACUUM (DATABASE_STATS {UPDATE,SKIP,ONLY})
> +1 for only introducing one option. IMHO UPDATE_DATABASE_STATS fits a
> little better since it states the action like most of the other options,
> but I think both choices are sufficiently clear.
I tried to make a patch along these lines, and soon hit a stumbling
block: ONLY is a fully-reserved SQL keyword. I don't think this
syntax is attractive enough to justify requiring people to
double-quote the option, so we are back to square one. Anybody
have a different suggestion?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-12-29 20:35:50 | Re: BUG #17734: Doc bug: "initial database user" used where "bootstrap superuser" is meant |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-29 18:52:14 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-12-29 20:50:12 | Re: Avoiding unnecessary clog lookups while freezing |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-12-29 20:20:39 | Re: Avoiding unnecessary clog lookups while freezing |