On 12/23/14, 8:49 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Em terça-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2014, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com <mailto:Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>>
escreveu:
>
> On 12/23/14, 8:54 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
> > Right now a lot of people just work around this with things like DO blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere in
thethread that fails for commands that can't be in a transaction.
> >
>
> I use "dblink" to solve it. :-)
>
>
> So... how about instead of solving this only for vacuum we create something generic? :) Possibly using Robert's
backgroundworker work?
>
>
> Interesting idea.
>
> But and what about the idea of improve the "--table" option from clients: vaccumdb and clusterdb?
Seems reasonable.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
