Re: New VACUUM FULL
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New VACUUM FULL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1258243676.18130.66.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | New VACUUM FULL (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: New VACUUM FULL
Re: New VACUUM FULL |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 13:55 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Here is a patch to support "rewrite" version of VACUUM FULL. Can you please provide a patch that applies cleanly on top of the vacuum options patch and on top of CVS HEAD (there are a couple minor conflicts with this version). That would make review easier. Initial comments: 1. Do we want to introduce syntax for INPLACE at all, if we are eventually going to remove the current mechanism? If not, then we should probably use REWRITE, because that's a better word than "REPLACE", I think. My opinion is that if we really still need the current in-place mechanism, then VACUUM (FULL) should use the current in-place mechanism; and VACUUM (FULL REWRITE) should use your new rewrite mechanism. That gives us a nice migration path toward always using the rewrite mechanism. 2. Why do all of the following exist: VACOPT_FULL, VACOPT_REPLACE, and VACOPT_INPLACE? Shouldn't VACOPT_FULL be equivalent to one of the other two? This is essentially what Simon was getting at, I think. 3. Some options are being set in vacuum() itself. It looks like the options should already be set in gram.y, so should that be an Assert instead? I think it's cleaner to set all of the options properly early on, rather than waiting until vacuum() to interpret the combinations. I haven't looked at the implementation in detail yet, but at a glance, it seems to be a good approach. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: