Ha! I’ve followed this all day.
- VACUUM FULL should not be renamed, no matter what it actually does. Do you realize how many scripts worldwide would need to be changed? Lol.
- It’s OpenSource. Grab the source, change whatever names you want, and now your PG is how you want it!
From: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 13:39 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Because vacuum is vacuum.
The problem is that the two commands do something different, so it
would be misleading. Renaming VACUUM (FULL) is a good idea in principle,
but I think that is more than 10 years too late. The compatibility
break would be too painful.
Make VACUUM (FULL) a synonym for RECREATE TABLE, then say in the docs that VACUUM (FULL) is deprecated.
Then drop it in PG 27...
Perhaps you could write a patch to add a column "last_rewritten"
to "pg_stat_all_tables"...
I'm a worse C programmer than I am a DBA.
It's never late.
I like the idea of RECREATE TABLE and deprecating VACUUM FULL a lot. It always seemed to me a non-user-friendly naming choice like pg_xlog or psql's \q, both of which are solved already.
With RECREATE TABLE, one day, we would be probably have RECREATE TABLE CONCURRENTLY implemented, making pg_repack less needed.
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:37 Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) <Matthew.Wetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
