On 2013-09-06 13:38:56 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: > On 09/06/2013 09:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >> I'm not sure if we need to expose all these new maintenance actions as > >> SQL commands. > > I strongly think we should, if only for diagnostic purposes. > It would be much easier and more flexible to expose them > as pg_*() function calls, not proper "commands".
I don't think that's as easy as you might imagine. For much of what's done in that context you cannot be in a transaction, you even need to be in a toplevel statement (since we internally CommitTransactionCommand/StartTransactionCommand). So those pg_* commands couldn't be called (except possibly via the fastpath function call API ...) which might restrict their usefulnes a teensy bit ;) So, I think extending the options passed to VACUUM - since it can take pretty generic options these days - is a more realistic path. > > Also to > > adapt to some well defined workloads that the automatic system is not > > designed to handle. > +1 What would you like to expose individually? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
