| 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 |
| Date: | 2017-09-04 12:14:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6DC876DF-74F3-4B3F-A7E6-C5F9DC4DDA91@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/3/17, 11:46 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I did not consider first that the list portion also needed to be
> modified, perhaps because I am not coding that myself... So now that
> it is becoming more complicated what about just using AutovacMemCxt?
> This would simplify the list of VacuumRelation entries and the
> RangeVar creation as well, and honestly this is ugly and there are no
> other similar patterns in the backend code:
+1
> This would become way more readable by using makeRangeVar() and the
> new makeVacuumRelation. As this is partly my fault that we are at this
> state, I am fine as well to remove this burden from you, Nathan, and
> fix that myself in a new version. And I don't want to step on your
> toes either :)
No worries, I can take care of it. I appreciate your patience with all
of these reviews.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexey Chernyshov | 2017-09-04 12:17:30 | Re: index-only count(*) for indexes supporting bitmap scans |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-09-04 11:46:07 | Re: Secondary index access optimizations |