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
