Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoAT10M6FPc0u2rub-7yw=Ynm7ENE9DNw-eTU01EQ40Hfg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> Ugh, really? Are we sure that the current behavior is anything other >> than a bug? The idea that VACUUM foo (a) implies ANALYZE doesn't >> really sit very well with me in the first place. I'd be more inclined >> to reject that with an ERROR complaining that the column list can't be >> specified except for ANALYZE. > > Yeah, that's probably more sensible. I think the rationale was "if you > specify columns you must want the ANALYZE option, so why make you type > that in explicitly?". But I can see the argument that it's likely to > confuse users who might have a weaker grasp of the semantics. > I'd not known such VACUUM behavior so I was a bit surprised but considering consistency with current behavior I thought that is not bad idea. But complaining with error seems more sensible. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: