Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:50 AM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 7:21 AM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:07 AM David G. Johnston <
>> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 6:58 AM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not wedded to the name RECREATE TABLE, but am wedded to the fact
>>>> that VACUUM FULL is a horrible name for what it does.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think there is general agreement here but your cure is arguably worse
>>> than the disease.
>>>
>>
>> Why? RECREATE TABLE says exactly what it does: recreates the table, and
>> *doesn't* pretend to do something it doesn't do (vacuum the table).
>>
>>
> That's distracting from the question at hand, which is whether and how to
> go about changing this, not whether the alternative naming is better than
> the existing one. It isn't so much better that the pain of change seems
> worth it. Mostly because it isn't like the universe simply gets
> reprogrammed to map the old onto the new, and having the old and new
> co-exist produces a burden.
>

I requested a feature from an open source project. The appropriate
response when Those Doing The Work don't want to do that work is "we don't
want to expend the effort on that".