| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? |
| Date: | 2022-01-19 21:11:48 |
| Message-ID: | 2E490EFA-541B-44BA-84CB-8229E304188B@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/22, 11:15 AM, "John Naylor" <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> This seems to be the motivating reason for wanting new configurability
> on the server side. In any case, new knobs are out of scope for this
> thread. If the use case is compelling enough, may I suggest starting a
> new thread?
Sure. Perhaps the new top-level command will use these new options
someday.
> Regarding the thread subject, I've been playing with the grammar, and
> found it's quite easy to have
>
> VACUUM FOR WRAPAROUND
> or
> VACUUM FOR EMERGENCY
>
> since FOR is a reserved word (and following that can be an IDENT plus
> a strcmp check) and cannot conflict with table names. This sounds a
> bit more natural than VACUUM LIMIT. Opinions?
I personally think VACUUM FOR WRAPAROUND is the best of the options
provided thus far.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arne Roland | 2022-01-19 21:13:55 | Re: missing indexes in indexlist with partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-19 20:43:10 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |