On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I'm not a big fan of it- what happens when we introduce something else > which would seem like it'd fall under 'maintain' but provides some > capability that maybe it wouldn't be good for users who could only run > the above commands to have? I'm tempted to suggest that, really, we > might even be thinking about splitting up things further than the above > proposal- what about VACUUM vs. VACUUM FULL? Or REFRESH MATVIEW vs. > REFRESH MATVIEW CONCURRENTLY? Mistakes between those routinly cause > problems due to the heavy lock taken in some cases- as an administrator, > I'd be a lot more comfortable giving a user or some process the ability > to run a VACUUM vs. VACUUM FULL.
That is a fair point, but if we want to do things like that then it's really not a good idea to limit ourselves to a fixed number of bits, even if it's 2x or 4x more than what we have today. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
