From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: remove flatfiles.c |
Date: | 2009-09-02 18:31:30 |
Message-ID: | 14718.1251916290@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should go one version with a enable_legacy_full_vacuum
>>> which defaults to off. That would at least let us hear about use cases
>>> where people are unhappy with a replacement.
>>
>> I think we do need to do this, just because people won't have changed
>> their admin scripts. But the goal should be to dump VACUUM FULL
>> entirely by 8.6 if we *don't* get serious use-cases.
> We could deal with the admin scripts by making VACUUM FULL do the new
> behaviour. But I actually don't really like that. I wold prefer to
> break VACUUM FULL since anyone doing it routinely is probably
> mistaken. We could name the command something which is more
> descriptive like VACUUM REWRITE or VACUUM REBUILD or something like
> that.
What's wrong with just ignoring the FULL option? It's a reserved
word anyway because of FULL OUTER JOINs, so there's no syntactic
benefit to be had from eliminating it from the VACUUM syntax.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-09-02 18:34:27 | Re: Linux LSB init script |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-02 18:31:26 | Re: remove flatfiles.c |