Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue)
Date
Msg-id 576868.1672334578@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue)  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
>> I assumed it would look like:
>> VACUUM (UPDATE_DATABASE_STATS {yes,no,only})

> Meh.  We could do it like that, but I think options that look like
> booleans but aren't are messy.

Note that I'm not necessarily objecting to there being just one option,
only to its values being a superset-of-boolean.  Perhaps this'd work:

VACUUM (DATABASE_STATS {UPDATE,SKIP,ONLY})

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoiding unnecessary clog lookups while freezing
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw uninterruptible during connection establishment / ProcSignalBarrier