On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 05/06/2016 01:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> * Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote: >>> >>> Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me. >>> When you use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it >>> plows through (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool >>> but FORCE doesn't work either. >> >> >> Isn't that exactly what this FORCE option being contemplated would do >> though? Plow through the entire relation, regardless of what the VM >> says is all frozen or not? >> >> Seems like FORCE is a good word for that to me. > > > Except that we aren't FORCING a vacuum. That is the part I have contention > with. To me, FORCE means: > > No matter what else is happening, we are vacuuming this relation (think > locks). > > But I am also not going to dig in my heals. If that is truly what -hackers > come up with, thank you at least considering what I said. > > Sincerely, > > JD >
As Joshua mentioned, FORCE word might imply doing VACUUM while plowing through locks. I guess that it might confuse the users. IMO, since this option will be a way for emergency, SCANALL word works for me. Or other ideas are, VACUUM IGNOREVM VACUUM RESCURE Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
