| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |
| Date: | 2014-12-21 19:18:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3418.1419189513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I work with some customer that have databases with a lot of schemas and
> sometimes we need to run manual VACUUM in one schema, and would be nice to
> have a new option to run vacuum in relations from a specific schema.
I'm pretty skeptical of this alleged use-case. Manual vacuuming ought
to be mostly a thing of the past, and even if it's not, hitting
*everything* in a schema should seldom be an appropriate thing to do.
While the feature itself might be fairly innocuous, I'm just wondering
why we need to encourage manual vacuuming. And why that, but not
say schema-wide ANALYZE, CLUSTER, TRUNCATE, ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2014-12-21 19:19:46 | Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-21 19:12:00 | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |