pg.ddx.io pgsql-admin@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRequest for featu VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Request for featu VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
@ 2024-05-09 21:16 Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <Matthew.Wetmore@evernorth.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) @ 2024-05-09 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>; Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>; +Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Ha! I’ve followed this all day.
1. VACUUM FULL should not be renamed, no matter what it actually does. Do you realize how many scripts worldwide would need to be changed? Lol.
2. It’s OpenSource. Grab the source, change whatever names you want, and now your PG is how you want it!
From: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 13:39 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com<mailto:ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at<mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>> wrote:
On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Because vacuum is vacuum.
The problem is that the two commands do something different, so it
would be misleading. Renaming VACUUM (FULL) is a good idea in principle,
but I think that is more than 10 years too late. The compatibility
break would be too painful.
Make VACUUM (FULL) a synonym for RECREATE TABLE, then say in the docs that VACUUM (FULL) is deprecated.
Then drop it in PG 27...
Perhaps you could write a patch to add a column "last_rewritten"
to "pg_stat_all_tables"...
I'm a worse C programmer than I am a DBA.
It's never late.
I like the idea of RECREATE TABLE and deprecating VACUUM FULL a lot. It always seemed to me a non-user-friendly naming choice like pg_xlog or psql's \q, both of which are solved already.
With RECREATE TABLE, one day, we would be probably have RECREATE TABLE CONCURRENTLY implemented, making pg_repack less needed.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Request for featu VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
@ 2024-05-10 18:40 Wells Oliver <wells.oliver@gmail.com>
parent: Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <Matthew.Wetmore@evernorth.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wells Oliver @ 2024-05-10 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <Matthew.Wetmore@evernorth.com>; +Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>; Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>; Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
I’ve always wanted SELECT to be renamed FETCH. What do we think?
Wells Oliver
wells.oliver@gmail.com <wellsoliver@gmail.com>
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:37 Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <
Matthew.Wetmore@evernorth.com> wrote:
> Ha! I’ve followed this all day.
>
>
>
> 1. VACUUM FULL should not be renamed, no matter what it actually
> does. Do you realize how many scripts worldwide would need to be changed?
> Lol.
> 2. It’s OpenSource. Grab the source, change whatever names you want,
> and now your PG is how you want it!
>
>
>
> *From:* Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:13 PM
> *To:* Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Pgsql-admin <
> pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates
> pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 13:39 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Because vacuum is vacuum.
>
> The problem is that the two commands do something different, so it
> would be misleading. Renaming VACUUM (FULL) is a good idea in principle,
> but I think that is more than 10 years too late. The compatibility
> break would be too painful.
>
>
>
> Make VACUUM (FULL) a synonym for RECREATE TABLE, then say in the docs that
> VACUUM (FULL) is deprecated.
>
>
>
> Then drop it in PG 27...
>
>
>
> Perhaps you could write a patch to add a column "last_rewritten"
> to "pg_stat_all_tables"...
>
>
>
> I'm a worse C programmer than I am a DBA.
>
>
>
> It's never late.
>
>
>
> I like the idea of RECREATE TABLE and deprecating VACUUM FULL a lot. It
> always seemed to me a non-user-friendly naming choice like pg_xlog or
> psql's \q, both of which are solved already.
>
>
>
> With RECREATE TABLE, one day, we would be probably have RECREATE TABLE
> CONCURRENTLY implemented, making pg_repack less needed.
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-05-10 18:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-05-09 21:16 Request for featu VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <Matthew.Wetmore@evernorth.com>
2024-05-10 18:40 ` Wells Oliver <wells.oliver@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox