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 CAB7nPqTkKAFiLdMP8FjUSaSTQHqir_S0svtTDmCuB6fF-BHtTg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that it's not good idea to forcibly set ANALYZE in
> spite of  ANALYZE option is not specified. One reason is that it would
> make us difficult to grep it from such as server log. I think It's
> better to use the same vacuum option to the all listed relations.

Even now, if you use VACUUM without listing ANALYZE directly, with
relation listing a set of columns, then ANALYZE is implied. I agree
with your point that the same options should be used for all the
relations, and it seems to me that if at least one relation listed has
a column list, then ANALYZE should be implied for all relations.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions
Next
From: Amit Khandekar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key