On 2013-09-06 13:38:56 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 09:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> I'm not sure if we need to expose all these new maintenance actions as
> >> SQL commands.
> > I strongly think we should, if only for diagnostic purposes.
> It would be much easier and more flexible to expose them
> as pg_*() function calls, not proper "commands".
I don't think that's as easy as you might imagine. For much of what's
done in that context you cannot be in a transaction, you even need to be
in a toplevel statement (since we internally
CommitTransactionCommand/StartTransactionCommand).
So those pg_* commands couldn't be called (except possibly via the
fastpath function call API ...) which might restrict their usefulnes a
teensy bit ;)
So, I think extending the options passed to VACUUM - since it can take
pretty generic options these days - is a more realistic path.
> > Also to
> > adapt to some well defined workloads that the automatic system is not
> > designed to handle.
> +1
What would you like to expose individually?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
