From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Date: | 2016-05-17 21:32:38 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCyz5hmm4KwpWd23CUHaDPua7mBYzMh_3F=kPkbkn-A6g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 12:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Syntaxes are;
>> VACUUM (SCAN_ALL) table_name;
>> VACUUM (SCAN_ALL); -- for all tables on database
>>
>> Is SCAN_ALL really the best we can do here? The business of having an
>> underscore in an option name has no precedent (other than
>> CURRENT_DATABASE and the like). How about COMPLETE, TOTAL, or WHOLE?
>>
>
> VACUUM (ANALYZE, VERBOSE, WHOLE)
> ....
>
> That seems reasonable? I agree that SCAN_ALL doesn't fit. I am not trying to
> pull a left turn but is there a technical reason we don't just make FULL do
> this?
>
FULL option requires AccessExclusiveLock, which could be a problem.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2016-05-17 21:34:38 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Previous Message | Shay Rojansky | 2016-05-17 21:23:26 | Re: Parameters don't work in FETCH NEXT clause? |