Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, 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.
> >
> > Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse
> > tables for little gain.
>
> We added REINDEX SCHEMA less than three weeks ago; if we accept that
> that was a good change, but think this is a bad one, it's not clear to
> me that there is any guiding principle here beyond who happened to
> weigh in on which threads.

I didn't think much of REINDEX SCHEMA, TBH.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services