| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum |
| Date: | 2024-05-09 20:39:01 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaBzVjiMBTQduOP+S5bOhJSarxqR12Nf=9W1uqsoBvebLQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Because vacuum is vacuum.
>
> The problem is that the two commands do something different, so it
> would be misleading. Renaming VACUUM (FULL) is a good idea in principle,
> but I think that is more than 10 years too late. The compatibility
> break would be too painful.
>
Make VACUUM (FULL) a synonym for RECREATE TABLE, then say in the docs that
VACUUM (FULL) is deprecated.
Then drop it in PG 27...
Perhaps you could write a patch to add a column "last_rewritten"
> to "pg_stat_all_tables"...
>
I'm a worse C programmer than I am a DBA.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rui DeSousa | 2024-05-09 20:45:41 | Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-05-09 20:11:55 | Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum |