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 | CAD21AoCS3kNNaZiCzqyJygdn_wt1iX+i6wT791DC3AfzVwhf6g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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. Oh.. I'd missed that behavior. Thanks! > 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. +1 Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: