| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-12-21 18:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | 87psad156u.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> How about...
>
> ALTER TABLE ...
> ALTER AUTOVACUUM [ THRESHOLD | SCALE | COST DELAY | COST LIMIT ]
> ALTER AUTOANALYZE [ THRESHOLD | SCALE ]
>
> ... or would that create a whole bunch of reserved words?
The way to predict when you're going to run into conflicts in a case like this
is to ask what happens if you have a column named "autovacuum" or
"autoanalyze"...
Sometimes the parser can look ahead to the next keyword to determine which
production to use but usually you're best off just looking for a grammatical
construct that doesn't look ambiguous even to a naive human reader.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2006-12-21 18:24:49 | Re: pgsql: Initial SQL/XML support: xml data type and |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-21 18:10:08 | Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum |