On 5 September 2017 at 02:16, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >> I've made this change in v14 of the main patch. >> >> In case others had opinions regarding the de-duplication patch, I've >> attached that again as well. > > + /* > + * Create the relation list in a long-lived memory context so that it > + * survives transaction boundaries. > + */ > + old_cxt = MemoryContextSwitchTo(AutovacMemCxt); > + rangevar = makeRangeVar(tab->at_nspname, tab->at_relname, -1); > + rel = makeVacuumRelation(rangevar, NIL, tab->at_relid); > + rel_list = list_make1(rel); > + MemoryContextSwitchTo(old_cxt); > That's way better, thanks for the new patch. > > So vacuum_multiple_tables_v14.patch is good for a committer in my > opinion. With this patch, if the same relation is specified multiple > times, then it gets vacuum'ed that many times. Using the same column > multi-times results in an error as on HEAD, but that's not a new > problem with this patch. > > So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times > should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times > on a relation if it is specified this much. This feels more natural, > at least to me, and it keeps the code simple.
ISTM there is no difference between VACUUM a, b and VACUUM a; VACUUM b; If we want to keep the code simple we must surely consider whether the patch has any utility. -- Simon Riggs 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
