Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Multi-table CLUSTER uses multiple transactions, so this should not be an > > issue. That said, I don't think there's much point in CLUSTER SCHEMA, > > much less TRUNCATE SCHEMA. Do you normally organize your schemas so > > that there are some that contain only tables that need to be truncated > > together? That would be a strange use case. > > > > Overall, this whole line of development seems like bloating the parse > > tables for little gain. > > We added REINDEX SCHEMA less than three weeks ago; if we accept that > that was a good change, but think this is a bad one, it's not clear to > me that there is any guiding principle here beyond who happened to > weigh in on which threads.
I didn't think much of REINDEX SCHEMA, TBH. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
