Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only

From: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
To: Gilles Darold <gilles(at)migops(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only
Date: 2022-03-10 23:02:13
Message-ID: CABV9wwNCVecDWnyp59RQFBQZNp4bJmxmO1_AUHM9s+5jEDMLSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 1:32 AM Gilles Darold <gilles(at)migops(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Le 09/03/2022 à 22:10, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
>
> Maybe it's clearer to write this with =ANY() / != ALL() ?
> See 002.
>
> I have applied your changes and produced a new version v3 of the patch,
> thanks for the improvements. The patch have been added to commitfest
> interface, see here https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3587/
>
> I wondered whether my patches were improvements, and it occurred to me that
> your patch didn't fail if the specified schema didn't exist. That's arguably
> preferable, but that's the pre-existing behavior for tables. So I think the
> behavior of my patch is more consistent.
>
> +1
>

+1 for consistency.

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2022-03-10 23:06:38 Re: PG DOCS - logical replication filtering
Previous Message Nikita Glukhov 2022-03-10 22:58:54 Re: Collecting statistics about contents of JSONB columns