| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-12-22 10:10:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1261476646.7442.4139.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:11 +0900, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> Instead, I'd suggest to have conditional database-wide maintenance
> commands, something like:
> VACUUM FULL WHERE <the table is fragmented>
>
> We don't have to support the feature by SQL syntax; it could be done
> in client tools. How about pg_maintain or pg_ctl maintain that cleans
> up each relation with appropriate command? We could replace vacuumdb,
> clusterdb, and reindexdb with it then.
Some broad thoughts...
Our perception of acceptable change is much higher than most users. If
we tell people "use VACUUM FULL" or vacuumdb -f, then that command
should, if possible, continue to work well across many releases.
vacuumdb in most people's minds is the command you run to ease
maintenance and make everything right, rather than a specific set of
features.
We have "It just works" as a principle. I think the corollary of that is
that we should also have "It just continues to work the same way".
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-22 10:42:30 | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-22 09:41:26 | Re: Small typos in Hot Standby docs |