Em terça-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2014, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>

> On 12/23/14, 8:54 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>>  > Right now a lot of people just work around this with things like DO
>> blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere in the thread that fails for commands
>> that can't be in a transaction.
>>  >
>> I use "dblink" to solve it. :-)
> So... how about instead of solving this only for vacuum we create
> something generic? :) Possibly using Robert's background worker work?

 Interesting idea.

But and what about the idea of improve the "--table" option from clients:
vaccumdb and clusterdb?


Fabrízio Mello

Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello

Reply via email to