Re: multiple target of VACUUM command

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: multiple target of VACUUM command
Date: 2017-09-05 08:22:01
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


At Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:09:20 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAB7nPqSB0k1ZyeXJ8iHdMQbeksYKB-psbiBvEfn--rTNmTreBw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > I sometimes feel annoyed when trying to VACUUM multiple specific
> > tables.
> >
> > postgres=# vacuum a, b;
> > ERROR: syntax error at or near ","
> > LINE 1: vacuum a, b;
> >
> > This patch just allows multiple targets for VACUUM command.
> There is a patch for the same feature by Nathan Bossart which is being
> discussed already in this commit fest:

Sorry for the duplication.

> It had already a couple of rounds of reviews, and is getting close to
> something that could be committed. There is still a pending bug
> related to the use of RangeVar though with autovacuum.
> Your approach is missing a couple of points. For example when
> specifying multiple targets, we have decided to check for an ERROR at
> the beginning of VACUUM, but we are issuing a WARNING if it goes
> missing in the middle of processing a list, so your set of patches
> would provide a frustrating experience. We have also discussed about
> reshaping a bit the API of vacuum(), so I would recommend looking at
> what has been already proposed if you are interested.

Thank you! I'll do that. I've mark this as "Rejected".


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sandro Santilli 2017-09-05 08:22:23 Re: pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION?
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-09-05 08:14:33 Re: show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs