On 9/4/17, 10:32 PM, "Simon Riggs" <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
Yes, this is true, but I think the convenience factor is a bit understated with that example. For example, if you need to manually cleanup several tables for XID purposes, VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1; VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table2; VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table3; VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table4; VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table5; becomes VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE table1, table2, table3, table4, table5; I would consider even this to be a relatively modest example compared to the sorts of things users might do. In addition, I'd argue that this feels like a natural extension of the VACUUM command, one that I, like others much earlier in this thread, was surprised to learn wasn't supported. Nathan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers