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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRaHAycMiQ5Ucs1STbqcN1FOSxeug420zO3ORrFpKTF=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/17, 8:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times
>> should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times
>> on a relation if it is specified this much. This feels more natural,
>> at least to me, and it keeps the code simple.
>
> I think that is a reasonable approach.  Another option I was thinking
> about was to de-duplicate only the individual column lists.  This
> alternative approach might be a bit more user-friendly, but I am
> beginning to agree with you that perhaps we should not try to infer
> the intent of the user in these "duplicate" scenarios.
>
> I'll work on converting the existing de-duplication patch into
> something more like what you suggested.

Cool. I'll look at anything you have.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup behavior on non-existent slot