| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(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: | 2017-05-18 06:19:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTkKAFiLdMP8FjUSaSTQHqir_S0svtTDmCuB6fF-BHtTg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems to me that it's not good idea to forcibly set ANALYZE in
> spite of ANALYZE option is not specified. One reason is that it would
> make us difficult to grep it from such as server log. I think It's
> better to use the same vacuum option to the all listed relations.
Even now, if you use VACUUM without listing ANALYZE directly, with
relation listing a set of columns, then ANALYZE is implied. I agree
with your point that the same options should be used for all the
relations, and it seems to me that if at least one relation listed has
a column list, then ANALYZE should be implied for all relations.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-05-18 06:24:12 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2017-05-18 06:05:15 | Re: Hash Functions |