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:

Reply via email to