VACUUM DATABASE
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | VACUUM DATABASE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1122409820.3670.40.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: VACUUM DATABASE
Re: VACUUM DATABASE |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. The reasons for this are better understanding and comprehension. Soooo many people are confused about the differences between the various types of VACUUM, even after they have looked in the manual (which many people do not, lets be honest). There is much confusion over the instruction that people need to VACUUM regularly means "VACUUM". Not VACUUM <table> or VACUUM FULL, but VACUUM. They generally take the keyword as a generic solution, rather than an exact command, especially when there are other specific variants. (Just like if I said, use ALTER TABLE, you would know I meant the generic, not literally to type "ALTER TABLE".) The next question is always why a "full database VACUUM" is not necessarily conducted with the VACUUM FULL command - thats something different... So the new syntax would allow us to differentiate between a VACUUM FULL and a VACUUM DATABASE much more easily. Anyway, by describing a lazy vacuum of the whole database as a VACUUM DATABASE, we now can more easily explain to everybody which command needs to be run in order to avoid transaction wraparound. I would propose updating the manual to consistently refer to the new term. My experience is that the majority of users are very, very confused as to what the various types of VACUUM do. Probably a good reason why we have autovacuum, but still worth mentioning, IMHO. Fear? Loathing? Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: