On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 00:07 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:20PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> > > to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> > > optional, to allow backward compatibility.
> > Huh, so why not have an optional LAZY?
> > I understand your concern against "VACUUM LAZY table", which is not
> > helpful -- so your advice would have to be rephrased as "issue a
> > database-wide lazy vacuum"
> With your syntax, I would have figured there
> would have been a vacuum full database.
> The term database seems to
> differentiate between vacuuming the complete database from vacuuming tables,
Exactly what I meant.
> but what I think you're after is differentiating between FULL and
> "non-full/lazy" vacuums. Maybe you're after both?
No, I just used the term lazy because that is how it is referred to
within the code. I'm happy that there are two kinds of vacuum, lazy and
full and that we differentiate between them by using the FULL keyword.
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I took that Alvaro was applying a
"reductio ad absurdum" argument (i.e. taking the piss). I laughed
heartily at the thought of LAZY becoming a PostgreSQL keyword.
Anyway, I think it shows how confusing the subject is when I can't
easily explain to you what I mean.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-07-27 22:41:35|
|Subject: Re: Integrated autovacuum|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-07-27 22:40:14|
|Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC|