Re: VACUUM DATABASE

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>
Subject: Re: VACUUM DATABASE
Date: 2005-07-27 04:07:47
Message-ID: 200507270007.48000.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
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"

Simon,
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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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