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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id 9200.1505952480@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
>>> I agree that the patch might be simpler without this, but the user-visible
>>> behavior is the reason I had included it.  In short, my goal was to avoid
>>> errors halfway through a long-running VACUUM statement because the user
>>> misspelled a relation/column name or the relation/column was dropped.

>> I don't particularly buy that argument, because it's not the case that
>> the preceding processing was wasted when that happens.  We've done and
>> committed the vacuuming work for the earlier relations.

> I think that the problem can be seen differently though: the next
> relations on the list would not be processed as well. For example in
> parallel of a manual VACUUM triggered by a cron job, say that a rogue
> admin removes a column for a relation to be VACUUM-ed. The relations
> processed before the relation redefined would have been vacuumed and
> the transaction doing the vacuum committed, but the ones listed after
> would not have been updated in this nightly VACUUM.

Um ... so?  With Nathan's proposed behavior, there are two cases depending
on just when the unexpected schema change happens:

1. *None* of the work gets done.

2. The work before the troublesome relation gets done, and the work after
doesn't.

I think it'll be much easier to understand if the behavior is always (2).
And I don't see any particular advantage to (1) anyway, especially not
for an unattended vacuum script.

Keep in mind that there were not-entirely-unjustified complaints upthread
about whether we needed to add any complexity here at all.  I'd just as
soon keep the added complexity to a minimum, especially when it's in
service of behaviors that are not clearly improvements.
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Windows warnings from VS 2017
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] compress method for spgist - 2