Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Josh Berkus<j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should go one version with a enable_legacy_full_vacuum
>>> which defaults to off. That would at least let us hear about use cases
>>> where people are unhappy with a replacement.
>>
>> I think we do need to do this, just because people won't have changed
>> their admin scripts. But the goal should be to dump VACUUM FULL
>> entirely by 8.6 if we *don't* get serious use-cases.
> We could deal with the admin scripts by making VACUUM FULL do the new
> behaviour. But I actually don't really like that. I wold prefer to
> break VACUUM FULL since anyone doing it routinely is probably
> mistaken. We could name the command something which is more
> descriptive like VACUUM REWRITE or VACUUM REBUILD or something like
> that.
What's wrong with just ignoring the FULL option? It's a reserved
word anyway because of FULL OUTER JOINs, so there's no syntactic
benefit to be had from eliminating it from the VACUUM syntax.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
