From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Date: | 2016-05-17 19:32:08 |
Message-ID: | 20160517193208.GA169606@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > We should support scan_all only with the new-style options syntax for
> > VACUUM; that is, vacuum (scan_all) rename. That doesn't require
> > making scan_all a keyword, which is good: this is a minor feature, and
> > we don't want to bloat the parsing tables for it.
>
> I agree with having new-style options syntax.
> Isn't it better to have SCAN_ALL option without parentheses?
>
> Syntaxes are;
> VACUUM SCAN_ALL table_name;
> VACUUM SCAN_ALL; -- for all tables on database
No, I agree with Robert that we shouldn't add any more such options to
avoid keyword proliferation.
Syntaxes are;
VACUUM (SCAN_ALL) table_name;
VACUUM (SCAN_ALL); -- for all tables on database
Is SCAN_ALL really the best we can do here? The business of having an
underscore in an option name has no precedent (other than
CURRENT_DATABASE and the like). How about COMPLETE, TOTAL, or WHOLE?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-05-17 19:50:35 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allocate all page images at once in generic wal interface |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-05-17 19:25:29 | Parallel query and temp_file_limit |