Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"
Date
Msg-id 20141222170542.GF3062@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.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.

I could see it happening in environments which use schemas when doing
partitioning.  eg: data_2014 contains all of the data_201401-201412
monthly (or perhaps weekly) tables.

> Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse
> tables for little gain.

Still, I see this point also.  I do think it'd be really great if we
could figure out a way to segregate these kinds of DDL / maintenance
commands from the normal select/insert/update/delete SQL parsing, such
that we could add more options, etc, to those longer running and less
frequent commands without impacting parse time for the high-volume
commands.

I'm less concerned about the memory impact, except to the extent that it
impacts throughput and performance.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"