On 09/06/2013 03:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > 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. Might be something convoluted like
VACUUM indexname WITH (function = "pg_cleanup_gin($1)"); :) > >>> 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 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
