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

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoAT10M6FPc0u2rub-7yw=Ynm7ENE9DNw-eTU01EQ40Hfg@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
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?  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'd not known such VACUUM behavior so I was a bit surprised but
considering consistency with current behavior I thought that is not
bad idea. But complaining with error seems more sensible.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table
Next
From: Marina Polyakova
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Precalculate stable functions,infrastructure v1