Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
> > > for d in $(psql -l --somthing); do vacuum $d; done
> > If you have a real shell (and know how to use it), sure. Is such a
> > solution acceptable to all those Windows users we're hoping to attract?
> I don't know how Windows users typically manage their systems, but if they
> use batch files they can also write a similar loop with the native shell.
> (I just tried it.)
> My problem with a program that runs a command for all databases is that it
> is too rigid: What if you want to run maintenance only on some databases
> (owned by you, big/small, even/odd, starting with 'x')? --- Cannot use
> it, back to the manual approach.
My assumption was that if you wanted only a few databases, you would use
psql. I see the only major advantage to the vacuumdb-like commands is
doing all databases. Are there other advantages?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2003-03-21 17:29:42|
|Subject: Re: cursors: SCROLL default, error messages|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-03-21 17:14:08|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQL||Date: 2003-03-21 17:18:35|
|Subject: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/Make ...|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian - CVS||Date: 2003-03-21 17:11:46|
|Subject: pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/ref declare.sgml|