| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(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: | 2017-09-05 22:53:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRaHAycMiQ5Ucs1STbqcN1FOSxeug420zO3ORrFpKTF=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/4/17, 8:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times
>> should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times
>> on a relation if it is specified this much. This feels more natural,
>> at least to me, and it keeps the code simple.
>
> I think that is a reasonable approach. Another option I was thinking
> about was to de-duplicate only the individual column lists. This
> alternative approach might be a bit more user-friendly, but I am
> beginning to agree with you that perhaps we should not try to infer
> the intent of the user in these "duplicate" scenarios.
>
> I'll work on converting the existing de-duplication patch into
> something more like what you suggested.
Cool. I'll look at anything you have.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-09-05 23:25:59 | Re: pg_basebackup behavior on non-existent slot |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-05 22:18:54 | Re: proposal psql \gdesc |