Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Ron Johnson
Subject Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
Date
Msg-id CANzqJaC0J9c8D=1u+cUKhbeZR0TSurwioqw4Ft0=qyj+X8pnkQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-admin
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:50 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 7:21 AM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:07 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 6:58 AM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not wedded to the name RECREATE TABLE, but am wedded to the fact that VACUUM FULL is a horrible name for what it does.


I think there is general agreement here but your cure is arguably worse than the disease.

Why?  RECREATE TABLE says exactly what it does: recreates the table, and doesn't pretend to do something it doesn't do (vacuum the table).


That's distracting from the question at hand, which is whether and how to go about changing this, not whether the alternative naming is better than the existing one.  It isn't so much better that the pain of change seems worth it.  Mostly because it isn't like the universe simply gets reprogrammed to map the old onto the new, and having the old and new co-exist produces a burden.
 
I requested a feature from an open source project.  The appropriate response when Those Doing The Work don't want to do that work is "we don't want to expend the effort on that".

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
Next
From: Scott Ribe
Date:
Subject: Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum