| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |
| Date: | 2014-12-23 13:54:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYCG00YHq0zAnkCTD6S6Znt+LSC2mon3HGsG7CsHNRJpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Multi-table CLUSTER uses multiple transactions, so this should not be an
> issue. That said, I don't think there's much point in CLUSTER SCHEMA,
> much less TRUNCATE SCHEMA. Do you normally organize your schemas so
> that there are some that contain only tables that need to be truncated
> together? That would be a strange use case.
>
> Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse
> tables for little gain.
We added REINDEX SCHEMA less than three weeks ago; if we accept that
that was a good change, but think this is a bad one, it's not clear to
me that there is any guiding principle here beyond who happened to
weigh in on which threads.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-23 14:05:55 | Re: [bug fix or improvement?] Correctly place DLLs for ECPG apps in bin folder |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-23 13:48:40 | Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS |