| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(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 01:12:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS+NunXL2==ydC6O16SdGzFQjOyv5bJLdpbk4urqawLVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I am fine with an ERROR if a column list is specified without ANALYZE
>>> listed in the options. But that should happen as well for the case
>>> where only one relation is listed.
>
>> Perhaps this could be changed for 10? Changing the behavior in
>> back-branches looks sensitive to me.
>
> It would make more sense to me to change it as part of the feature
> addition, when/if this patch gets committed. Otherwise, we just break
> code that works today and we can't point to any solid benefit.
Fine for me as well. I would suggest to split the patch into two parts
to ease review then:
- Rework this error handling for one relation.
- The main patch.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-19 01:14:17 | Re: Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-19 01:05:58 | Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur |