| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Date: | 2017-09-21 00:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | 10905.1505955071@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um ... so? With Nathan's proposed behavior, there are two cases depending
>> on just when the unexpected schema change happens:
>> 1. *None* of the work gets done.
>> 2. The work before the troublesome relation gets done, and the work after
>> doesn't.
> You may be missing one which is closer to what autovacuum does:
> 3) Issue a warning for the troublesome relation, and get the work done
> a maximum.
Well, we could certainly discuss whether the behavior on detecting a
conflict ought to be "error" or "warning and continue". But I do not buy
the value of "it might be one or the other depending on timing".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-21 00:58:28 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-21 00:38:17 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |