On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 19:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:41:24PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Forgive me if this is wrong, but I took that Alvaro was applying a
> > "reductio ad absurdum" argument (i.e. taking the piss). I laughed
> > heartily at the thought of LAZY
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:41:24PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Forgive me if this is wrong, but I took that Alvaro was applying a
> "reductio ad absurdum" argument (i.e. taking the piss). I laughed
> heartily at the thought of LAZY becoming a PostgreSQL keyword.
Ah, well, actually you are wrong,
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 00:07 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:20PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> > > to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. T
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:20PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> > to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> > optional, to allow backward co
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> optional, to allow backward compatibility.
This would require converting DATABASE from an unreserved keyword in
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:20PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> I'd like to suggest altering the syntax of VACUUM so that it is possible
> to issue the command VACUUM DATABASE. The keyword DATABASE would be
> optional, to allow backward compatibility.
Huh, so why not have an optional LAZY?
I un
