On 2014-12-22 12:12:12 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 2014-12-21 14:18:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > While the feature itself might be fairly innocuous, I'm just wondering > > > why we need to encourage manual vacuuming. And why that, but not > > > say schema-wide ANALYZE, CLUSTER, TRUNCATE, ... > > > > There's one argument for supporting more for VACUUM than the rest - it > > can't be executed directly as the result of a query as the others > > can... I wonder if that'd not better be answered by adding a feature to > > vacuumdb that allows selecting the to-be-vacuumed table by a user > > defined query. > > Wow. That's certainly an interesting idea. > > We might end up turning the autovacuum process into a generalized > scheduler/cron-like entity that way though.
I'm not talking about autovacuum, just plain vacuumdb. > I'd rather we just build > that. Users would then be able to run a script periodically which > would add VACUUM commands to be run on whichever tables they want to > the jobs queue, either for immediate execution or at whatever time they > want (or possibly chronically :). And this discussion just feature creeped beyond anything realistic... :) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers