Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Date: 2005-07-27 04:07:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:20PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> > to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> > optional, to allow backward compatibility.
> Huh, so why not have an optional LAZY?
> I understand your concern against "VACUUM LAZY table", which is not
> helpful -- so your advice would have to be rephrased as "issue a
> database-wide lazy vacuum"

    While I don't think I would advocate the term "vacuum lazy", istm that 
alvarro is on the right track.  With your syntax, I would have figured there 
would have been a vacuum full database.  The term database seems to 
differentiate between vacuuming the complete database from vacuuming tables, 
but what I think you're after is differntiating between FULL and 
"non-full/lazy" vacuums.  Maybe you're after both?

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-27 04:08:18
Subject: Re: RESULT_OID Bug
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-07-27 03:59:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group