Re: Reviewing freeze map code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Date
Msg-id 572D0471.3040009@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 05/06/2016 01:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:

>>> Let's add VACUUM (FORCE) or something like that.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
>
>> This is actually inverted. Vacuum by default should vacuum the entire
>> relation
>
> What? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Not to speak of hte fact
> that that's not been the case since ~8.4?

Sorry, I just meant the default behavior shouldn't change but I do agree 
that we need the ability to keep the same behavior.

>> ,however if we are going to keep the existing behavior of this
>> patch, VACUUM (FROZEN) seems to be better than (FORCE)?
>
> There already is FREEZE - meaning something different - so I doubt it.

Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me. When 
you use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it plows 
through (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool but FORCE 
doesn't work either.

Sincerely,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christian Ullrich
Date:
Subject: Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code