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... :)


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:

Reply via email to