Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
От | David G. Johnston |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKFQuwYoegUNB4yfK1s=JJ3TDLnJfQB05F647Mh61SGx0P7ogA@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 8/30/17, 5:37 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah... Each approach has its cost and its advantages. It may be
> better to wait for more opinions, no many people have complained yet
> that for example a list of columns using twice the same one fails.
Sounds good to me.
> +VACUUM [ FULL ] [ FREEZE ] [ VERBOSE ] [ <replaceable
> class="PARAMETER">table_name</replaceable> ] [, ...]
> I just noticed that... But regarding the docs, I think that you have
> misplaced the position of "[, ...]", which should be inside the
> table_name portion in the case of what I quote here, no?
I think that's what I had initially, but it was changed somewhere along
the line. It is a little more complicated for the versions that accept
column lists.
VACUUM ... ANALYZE [ [ table_name [ (column_name [, ...] ) ] ] [, ...] ]
ISTM that we need the extra brackets here to clarify that the table and
column list combination is what can be provided in a list. Does that
make sense? Or do you think we can omit the outermost brackets here?
Inspired by the syntax documentation for EXPLAIN:
VACUUM [ ( option [, ...] ) ] [ table_def [, ...] ]
where option can be one of:
FULL
FREEZE
VERBOSE
DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING
and where table_def is:
table_name [ ( column_name [, ... ] ) ]
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: