|From:||"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 9/5/17, 5:53 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/17, 8:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times
>>> should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times
>>> on a relation if it is specified this much. This feels more natural,
>>> at least to me, and it keeps the code simple.
>> I think that is a reasonable approach. Another option I was thinking
>> about was to de-duplicate only the individual column lists. This
>> alternative approach might be a bit more user-friendly, but I am
>> beginning to agree with you that perhaps we should not try to infer
>> the intent of the user in these "duplicate" scenarios.
>> I'll work on converting the existing de-duplication patch into
>> something more like what you suggested.
> Cool. I'll look at anything you have.
I've attached v1 of this patch. I think we might want to refactor the
code for retrieving the relation name from a RangeVar, but it would
probably be better to do that in a separate patch.
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2017-09-07 01:11:51||Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.|
|Previous Message||Tatsuro Yamada||2017-09-07 00:22:40||Re: Minor code improvement to postgresGetForeignPlan|