Em terça-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2014, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> escreveu:
> On 12/23/14, 8:54 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > >> > Right now a lot of people just work around this with things like DO >> blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere in the thread that fails for commands >> that can't be in a transaction. >> > >> >> I use "dblink" to solve it. :-) >> > > So... how about instead of solving this only for vacuum we create > something generic? :) Possibly using Robert's background worker work? Interesting idea. But and what about the idea of improve the "--table" option from clients: vaccumdb and clusterdb? Regards, Fabrízio Mello -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io >> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello >> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
