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 CAB7nPqRfwjJj8416BZ2+-v8ccWC8sikFAMUGY83EP1jWe6pHwQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Ugh, really?  Are we sure that the current behavior is anything other
>> than a bug?

Point was raised already upthread by me ince, which is what lead me to
the reasoning of my last argument:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31695.1494471378@sss.pgh.pa.us
And, like you, I saw that as an oversight.

> The idea that VACUUM foo (a) implies ANALYZE doesn't
>> really sit very well with me in the first place.  I'd be more inclined
>> to reject that with an ERROR complaining that the column list can't be
>> specified except for ANALYZE.
>
> Yeah, that's probably more sensible.  I think the rationale was "if you
> specify columns you must want the ANALYZE option, so why make you type
> that in explicitly?".   But I can see the argument that it's likely to
> confuse users who might have a weaker grasp of the semantics.

I am fine with an ERROR if a column list is specified without ANALYZE
listed in the options. But that should happen as well for the case
where only one relation is listed.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands