Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYCG00YHq0zAnkCTD6S6Znt+LSC2mon3HGsG7CsHNRJpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA"  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Multi-table CLUSTER uses multiple transactions, so this should not be an
> issue.  That said, I don't think there's much point in CLUSTER SCHEMA,
> much less TRUNCATE SCHEMA.  Do you normally organize your schemas so
> that there are some that contain only tables that need to be truncated
> together?  That would be a strange use case.
>
> Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse
> tables for little gain.

We added REINDEX SCHEMA less than three weeks ago; if we accept that
that was a good change, but think this is a bad one, it's not clear to
me that there is any guiding principle here beyond who happened to
weigh in on which threads.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix or improvement?] Correctly place DLLs for ECPG apps in bin folder