Re: Vacuum summary?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum summary?
Date: 2005-07-12 06:47:42
Message-ID: 1121150862.3970.98.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >>What do you guys think of having a vacuum summary command? E.g.;
> >
> >
> >>VACUUM [FULL] [ANALYZE] SUMMARY
> >
> >
> > ... that will turn SUMMARY into a fully reserved word ...
>
> Hmmm... good point. Other options would be:
>
> brief
> short
> terse?
> nutshell ;)
> review
> report -- This one is interesting although sufffers from the same problem.
>

Good idea. I think its a good idea to make that info easily accessible.

How about putting this in the logfile, without any command changes?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-07-12 06:53:11 CONCURRENT INDEXing again (was: Must be owner to truncate?)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-12 03:29:20 Re: thousands comma numeric formatting in psql