On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
Oops, VACUUM RESCUE is correct. 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
