Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Date: 2007-08-11 05:02:55
Message-ID: 22531.1186808575@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Incidentally, every time it comes up we recommend using CLUSTER or ALTER
> TABLE. And explaining the syntax for ALTER TABLE is always a bit fiddly. I
> wonder if it would make sense to add a "VACUUM REWRITE" which just did the
> same as the noop ALTER TABLE we're recommending people do anyways. Then we
> could have a HINT from VACUUM FULL which suggests considering VACUUM REWRITE.

Not that syntax, please :-(. The trouble with VACUUM [adjective] is
that "adjective" has to become a fully reserved keyword, else the parser
can't tell it from a table name. This is all right for FULL because
that's a reserved word anyway due to the outer join syntax, but I really
don't want to do it for any words that aren't otherwise reserved.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-08-11 05:42:37 Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-08-11 04:45:31 Re: Wrote a connect-by feature