On 12/23/14, 8:49 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Em terça-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2014, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com <mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>> escreveu: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?
Seems reasonable. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
