On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Josh Berkus<j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> Perhaps we should go one version with a enable_legacy_full_vacuum >>>> which defaults to off. That would at least let us hear about use cases >>>> where people are unhappy with a replacement. >>> >>> I think we do need to do this, just because people won't have changed >>> their admin scripts. But the goal should be to dump VACUUM FULL >>> entirely by 8.6 if we *don't* get serious use-cases. > >> We could deal with the admin scripts by making VACUUM FULL do the new >> behaviour. But I actually don't really like that. I wold prefer to >> break VACUUM FULL since anyone doing it routinely is probably >> mistaken. We could name the command something which is more >> descriptive like VACUUM REWRITE or VACUUM REBUILD or something like >> that. > > What's wrong with just ignoring the FULL option? It's a reserved > word anyway because of FULL OUTER JOINs, so there's no syntactic > benefit to be had from eliminating it from the VACUUM syntax.
Silent behavior changes are usually a bad idea. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
