From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: multiple target of VACUUM command |
Date: | 2017-08-31 14:09:20 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSB0k1ZyeXJ8iHdMQbeksYKB-psbiBvEfn--rTNmTreBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I sometimes feel annoyed when trying to VACUUM multiple specific
> tables.
>
> postgres=# vacuum a, b;
> ERROR: syntax error at or near ","
> LINE 1: vacuum a, b;
>
> This patch just allows multiple targets for VACUUM command.
There is a patch for the same feature by Nathan Bossart which is being
discussed already in this commit fest:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E061A8E3-5E3D-494D-94F0-E8A9B312BBFC@amazon.com
It had already a couple of rounds of reviews, and is getting close to
something that could be committed. There is still a pending bug
related to the use of RangeVar though with autovacuum.
Your approach is missing a couple of points. For example when
specifying multiple targets, we have decided to check for an ERROR at
the beginning of VACUUM, but we are issuing a WARNING if it goes
missing in the middle of processing a list, so your set of patches
would provide a frustrating experience. We have also discussed about
reshaping a bit the API of vacuum(), so I would recommend looking at
what has been already proposed if you are interested.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-31 14:44:41 | Re: Hooks to track changed pages for backup purposes |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2017-08-31 13:44:13 | Re: generated columns |