Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> maybe it
>> is time to bite the bullet and clean up VACUUM's syntax so that new
>> modifiers can be added without making them reserved words. The first
>> idea that comes to mind is something like
> I'd be OK with putting the optio
Tom Lane wrote:
> maybe it
> is time to bite the bullet and clean up VACUUM's syntax so that new
> modifiers can be added without making them reserved words. The first
> idea that comes to mind is something like
>
> VACUUM [tablename] [ WITH REPLACE, VERBOSE [, ...] ]
I'd be OK with putti
I was thinking about the proposals that have been made a couple of times
to offer a variant of VACUUM that works by table-rewriting (ie, same as
CLUSTER except for not sorting the rows). I thought I'd do some
experimentation to see what a reasonable syntax for it would be.
I soon convinced myself
