Re: Request for featu VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum

I’ve always wanted SELECT to be renamed FETCH. What do we think?

Wells Oliver
wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com <wellsoliver(at)gmail(dot)com>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:37 Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <
Matthew(dot)Wetmore(at)evernorth(dot)com> wrote:

> Ha! I’ve followed this all day.
>
>
>
> 1. VACUUM FULL should not be renamed, no matter what it actually
> does. Do you realize how many scripts worldwide would need to be changed?
> Lol.
> 2. It’s OpenSource. Grab the source, change whatever names you want,
> and now your PG is how you want it!
>
>
>
> *From:* Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:13 PM
> *To:* Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
> *Cc:* Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>; Pgsql-admin <
> pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates
> pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 13:39 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> It's never late.
>
>
>
> I like the idea of RECREATE TABLE and deprecating VACUUM FULL a lot. It
> always seemed to me a non-user-friendly naming choice like pg_xlog or
> psql's \q, both of which are solved already.
>
>
>
> With RECREATE TABLE, one day, we would be probably have RECREATE TABLE
> CONCURRENTLY implemented, making pg_repack less needed.
>