Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc:
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > > for d in $(psql -l --somthing); do vacuum $d; done
> > If you have a real shell (and know how to use it), sure. Is such a
> > solution acceptable to all those Windows users we're hoping to attract?
>
> I don't know how Windows users typically manage their systems, but if they
> use batch files they can also write a similar loop with the native shell.
> (I just tried it.)
>
> My problem with a program that runs a command for all databases is that it
> is too rigid: What if you want to run maintenance only on some databases
> (owned by you, big/small, even/odd, starting with 'x')? --- Cannot use
> it, back to the manual approach.
My assumption was that if you wanted only a few databases, you would use
psql. I see the only major advantage to the vacuumdb-like commands is
doing all databases. Are there other advantages?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
