| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-05-17 20:34:51 |
| Message-ID: | 573B806B.8020301@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/17/2016 12:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Syntaxes are;
> VACUUM (SCAN_ALL) table_name;
> VACUUM (SCAN_ALL); -- for all tables on database
>
> Is SCAN_ALL really the best we can do here? The business of having an
> underscore in an option name has no precedent (other than
> CURRENT_DATABASE and the like). How about COMPLETE, TOTAL, or WHOLE?
>
VACUUM (ANALYZE, VERBOSE, WHOLE)
....
That seems reasonable? I agree that SCAN_ALL doesn't fit. I am not
trying to pull a left turn but is there a technical reason we don't just
make FULL do this?
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-05-17 20:53:40 | Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-05-17 20:33:15 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |