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 compatibility.
>
> Huh, so why not have an optional LAZY?
>
> I understand your concern against "VACUUM LAZY table", which is not
> helpful -- so your advice would have to be rephrased as "issue a
> database-wide lazy vacuum"
Simon,
While I don't think I would advocate the term "vacuum lazy", istm that
alvarro is on the right track. With your syntax, I would have figured there
would have been a vacuum full database. The term database seems to
differentiate between vacuuming the complete database from vacuuming tables,
but what I think you're after is differntiating between FULL and
"non-full/lazy" vacuums. Maybe you're after both?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
