On 9/4/17, 10:32 PM, "Simon Riggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ISTM there is no difference between
> VACUUM a, b
> and
> VACUUM a; VACUUM b;
>
> If we want to keep the code simple we must surely consider whether the
> patch has any utility.
Yes, this is true, but I think the convenience factor is a bit
understated with that example. For example, if you need to manually
cleanup several tables for XID purposes,
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1;
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table2;
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table3;
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table4;
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table5;
becomes
VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1, table2, table3, table4, table5;
I would consider even this to be a relatively modest example compared
to the sorts of things users might do.
In addition, I'd argue that this feels like a natural extension of the
VACUUM command, one that I, like others much earlier in this thread,
was surprised to learn wasn't supported.
Nathan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
