From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |
Date: | 2014-12-22 17:05:42 |
Message-ID: | 20141222170542.GF3062@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Multi-table CLUSTER uses multiple transactions, so this should not be an
> issue. That said, I don't think there's much point in CLUSTER SCHEMA,
> much less TRUNCATE SCHEMA. Do you normally organize your schemas so
> that there are some that contain only tables that need to be truncated
> together? That would be a strange use case.
I could see it happening in environments which use schemas when doing
partitioning. eg: data_2014 contains all of the data_201401-201412
monthly (or perhaps weekly) tables.
> Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse
> tables for little gain.
Still, I see this point also. I do think it'd be really great if we
could figure out a way to segregate these kinds of DDL / maintenance
commands from the normal select/insert/update/delete SQL parsing, such
that we could add more options, etc, to those longer running and less
frequent commands without impacting parse time for the high-volume
commands.
I'm less concerned about the memory impact, except to the extent that it
impacts throughput and performance.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-22 17:11:07 | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2014-12-22 16:58:49 | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |