| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A few new options for vacuumdb |
| Date: | 2018-12-21 16:49:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2e_bWotweV9q3280LX=Nd6PC36=mBG7hSihjeoUwn5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:05 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > It does not seem clear whether the user wants us to process mytable
> > only if it is at least 1 GB, or if we should process mytable in
> > addition to any other relations over 1 GB. Either way, I think trying
> > to support these combinations of options adds more complexity than it
> > is worth.
>
> It seems to me that a combination of both options means that the listed
> table should be processed only if its minimum size is 1GB. If multiple
> tables are specified with --table, then only those reaching 1GB would be
> processed.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-21 16:50:28 | Re: Improve selectivity estimate for range queries |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-21 16:43:06 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |