Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 22:13:32 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: vacuumdb/clusterdb/reindexdb: allow specifying objects to
 process in all databases
Message-ID: <20230630051332.GB2640352@nathanxps13>
References: <20230628232402.GA1954626@nathanxps13>
 <20230629.141626.886053266048932185.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20230629205638.GA2054380@nathanxps13>
 <20230630.120517.1837918148802895337.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230630.120517.1837918148802895337.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230630051332.GB2640352%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 12:05:17PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:56:38 -0700, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote in 
>> Sorry, I'm not following.  I intentionally avoided allowing combinations of
>> --schema and --table in the patches I sent.  This is the current behavior
>> of vacuumdb.  Are you suggesting that they should be treated as restriction
>> filters?
> 
> No. I'm not suggesting. Just saying that they would look appear to
> work as a restriction filters if those two options can be specified at
> once.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

>> Perhaps we could add something like a --skip-missing option.
> 
> But isn't it a bit too complicated for the gain?
> 
> I don't have a strong objection if we're fine with just allowing
> "--all --schema=xxx", knowing that it will works cleanly only for
> system catalogs.

Okay.  I haven't scoped out what would be required to support a
--skip-missing option, but it doesn't sound too terribly complicated to me.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com