Re: Reviewing freeze map code
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 572D0471.3040009@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reviewing freeze map code (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/06/2016 01:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Let's add VACUUM (FORCE) or something like that. > > Yes, that makes sense. > > >> This is actually inverted. Vacuum by default should vacuum the entire >> relation > > What? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Not to speak of hte fact > that that's not been the case since ~8.4? Sorry, I just meant the default behavior shouldn't change but I do agree that we need the ability to keep the same behavior. >> ,however if we are going to keep the existing behavior of this >> patch, VACUUM (FROZEN) seems to be better than (FORCE)? > > There already is FREEZE - meaning something different - so I doubt it. Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me. When you use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it plows through (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool but FORCE doesn't work either. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: