| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Date: | 2017-05-19 03:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | 755B6B5D-1808-42CE-9881-3A6A7424A3BD@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/18/17, 8:26 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +VACUUM vactst (i);
> Looking at the tests of v5, I think that you should as well add a test
> that lists multiple relations with one or more relations listing a
> column list for a VACUUM query, without ANALYZE specified in the
> options as the parsings of VacuumStmt and AnalyzeStmt are two
> different code paths, giving something like that:
> VACUUM (FREEZE) rel1, rel2(col1,col2); --error
Agreed, this seems like a good test case. I’ve added it in v6 of the patch, which is attached.
Nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| vacuum_multiple_tables_v6.patch | application/octet-stream | 33.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-05-19 03:55:55 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-05-19 03:48:08 | Re: Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names |