Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands

On 9/4/17, 10:32 PM, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> ISTM there is no difference between
>   VACUUM a, b
> and
>   VACUUM a; VACUUM b;
>
> If we want to keep the code simple we must surely consider whether the
> patch has any utility.

Yes, this is true, but I think the convenience factor is a bit
understated with that example.  For example, if you need to manually
cleanup several tables for XID purposes,VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1;VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table2;VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE
table3;VACUUMFREEZE VERBOSE table4;VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table5;
 
becomesVACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1, table2, table3, table4, table5;

I would consider even this to be a relatively modest example compared
to the sorts of things users might do.

In addition, I'd argue that this feels like a natural extension of the
VACUUM command, one that I, like others much earlier in this thread,
was surprised to learn wasn't supported.

Nathan