Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations
Date: 2017-09-26 02:12:09
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSfjeNfTbhF_oQQq0xn3DZ18jy6OkFeJwjmX2nKSZv8Pw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I think that's right, although, I don't see any new RangeVar created under
> vacuum() at the moment. Maybe, you're referring to the Nathan's patch
> that perhaps does that.

Yes, you can check what it does here (last version):
766556DD-AA3C-42F7-ACF4-5DC97F41F151(at)amazon(dot)com
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-26 02:14:15 Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-26 02:09:42 Re: [JDBC] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256