On 8/30/17, 5:37 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah... Each approach has its cost and its advantages. It may be
> better to wait for more opinions, no many people have complained yet
> that for example a list of columns using twice the same one fails.
Sounds good to me.
> +VACUUM [ FULL ] [ FREEZE ] [ VERBOSE ] [ <replaceable
> class="PARAMETER">table_name</replaceable> ] [, ...]
> I just noticed that... But regarding the docs, I think that you have
> misplaced the position of "[, ...]", which should be inside the
> table_name portion in the case of what I quote here, no?
I think that's what I had initially, but it was changed somewhere along
the line. It is a little more complicated for the versions that accept
column lists.
VACUUM ... ANALYZE [ [ table_name [ (column_name [, ...] ) ] ] [, ...] ]
ISTM that we need the extra brackets here to clarify that the table and
column list combination is what can be provided in a list. Does that
make sense? Or do you think we can omit the outermost brackets here?
> +VacuumRelation *
> +makeVacuumRelation(RangeVar *relation, List *va_cols, Oid oid)
> +{
> + VacuumRelation *vacrel = makeNode(VacuumRelation);
> + vacrel->relation = relation;
> + vacrel->va_cols = va_cols;
> + vacrel->oid = oid;
> + return vacrel;
> +}
> Perhaps in makefuncs.c instead of vacuum.c? That's usually the place
> used for node constructions like that.
Ah, yes. That is a much better place. I'll make this change.
Nathan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
