Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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.


Attachment Content-Type Size
vacuum_multiple_tables_v6.patch application/octet-stream 33.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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