Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqSdswVjiPrnxcF8Rfif=ERq3aU7n42wr9Z3m26j=io1sg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote: > I agree with you here, too. I stopped short of allowing customers to explicitly provide per-table options, so the exampleyou provided wouldn’t work here. This is more applicable for something like the following: > > VACUUM (FREEZE, VERBOSE) foo, bar (a); > > In this case, the FREEZE and VERBOSE options are used for both tables. However, we have a column list specified for ‘bar’,and the ANALYZE option is implied when we specify a column list. So when we process ‘bar’, we need to apply the ANALYZEoption, but we do not need it for ‘foo’. For now, that is all that this per-table options variable is used for. Hm. One argument can be made here: having a column list defined in one of the tables implies that ANALYZE is enforced for all the relations listed instead of doing that only on the relations listing columns. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: