Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> Why do you think that it's better for VACUUM command to have the option? I think it's a
> table property whose value is determined based on the application workload, not per VACUUM
> execution. Rather, I think GUC is more useful to determine the behavior of the entire
> database and/or application.
I cannot speak for Alvaro, but I think that many people think that a global setting
is too dangerous (I personally don't think so).
And if we don't have a GUC, an option to VACUUM would be convenient for one-time
clean-up of a table where taking a truncation lock would be too disruptive.
> If we want to change a given execution of VACUUM, then we can ALTER TABLE SET, VACUUM,
> and ALTER TABLE SET back.
True. That ALTER TABLE would probably need a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock on the table,
and that's no worse than VACUUM itself.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe