Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id 20170905212051.34rq3nlm7eox6svb@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
> > On 9/4/17, 10:32 PM, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> If we want to keep the code simple we must surely consider whether the
> >> patch has any utility.
> 
> > ... I'd argue that this feels like a natural extension of the
> > VACUUM command, one that I, like others much earlier in this thread,
> > was surprised to learn wasn't supported.
> 
> Yeah.  To me, one big argument for allowing multiple target tables is that
> we allow it for other common utility commands such as TRUNCATE or LOCK
> TABLE.

TRUNCATE has actual an feature behind its multi-table ability: you can
truncate tables linked by FKs that way, and not otherwise.  VACUUM, like
LOCK TABLE, have no such benefit.

(If one is programatically locking multiple tables, it is easier to do
one table per command than many in one command, anyway.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replacing lfirst() with lfirst_node() appropriately in planner.c
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API