Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gilles Darold
Subject Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only
Date
Msg-id 4940792b-0244-2e8d-82f6-e2c2449b66c5@migops.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only
List pgsql-hackers
Le 09/03/2022 à 22:10, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
Maybe it's clearer to write this with =ANY() / != ALL() ?
See 002.
I have applied your changes and produced a new version v3 of the patch,
thanks for the improvements. The patch have been added to commitfest
interface, see here https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3587/
I wondered whether my patches were improvements, and it occurred to me that
your patch didn't fail if the specified schema didn't exist.  That's arguably
preferable, but that's the pre-existing behavior for tables.  So I think the
behavior of my patch is more consistent.

+1

-- 
Gilles Darold

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error