From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: remove flatfiles.c |
Date: | 2009-09-02 19:04:27 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909021204o6b78ca5coba1494ff028f372b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps we should go one version with a enable_legacy_full_vacuum
>>>> which defaults to off. That would at least let us hear about use cases
>>>> where people are unhappy with a replacement.
>>>
>>> I think we do need to do this, just because people won't have changed
>>> their admin scripts. But the goal should be to dump VACUUM FULL
>>> entirely by 8.6 if we *don't* get serious use-cases.
>
>> We could deal with the admin scripts by making VACUUM FULL do the new
>> behaviour. But I actually don't really like that. I wold prefer to
>> break VACUUM FULL since anyone doing it routinely is probably
>> mistaken. We could name the command something which is more
>> descriptive like VACUUM REWRITE or VACUUM REBUILD or something like
>> that.
>
> What's wrong with just ignoring the FULL option? It's a reserved
> word anyway because of FULL OUTER JOINs, so there's no syntactic
> benefit to be had from eliminating it from the VACUUM syntax.
Silent behavior changes are usually a bad idea.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-02 19:05:48 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Derived files that are shipped in the distribution used to be |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-09-02 19:01:06 | Re: remove flatfiles.c |