Skip to content

Conversation

@fgrosse
Copy link
Contributor

@fgrosse fgrosse commented Feb 19, 2025

Just removing an outdated comment. It seems to me like the BGW now actually does use run_maintenance_proc.

Thank you for the great extension!

@keithf4
Copy link
Collaborator

keithf4 commented Feb 19, 2025

Thank you!

@keithf4 keithf4 self-requested a review February 19, 2025 21:58
@fgrosse
Copy link
Contributor Author

fgrosse commented Feb 20, 2025

I'm happy to contribute, even if its just small doc changes. I don't have permissions to merge the change, @keithf4, will you take care of this?

I also have a question about run_maintenance but let me know if you would like me to copy it over to an issue instead: I noticed that run_maintenance has a p_parent_table argument but run_maintenance_proc doesn't. This currently prevents me from using the _proc version because I prefer to have control over which table I want to run the maintenance on. Do you think the argument could be added to the stored procedure as well?

@keithf4
Copy link
Collaborator

keithf4 commented Feb 20, 2025

I'm happy to contribute, even if its just small doc changes. I don't have permissions to merge the change, @keithf4, will you take care of this?

I'll take care of it.

I also have a question about run_maintenance but let me know if you would like me to copy it over to an issue instead: I noticed that run_maintenance has a p_parent_table argument but run_maintenance_proc doesn't. This currently prevents me from using the _proc version because I prefer to have control over which table I want to run the maintenance on. Do you think the argument could be added to the stored procedure as well?

So the only thing the procedure does differently is run maintenance on more than one partition set and ensures there is a commit between each partition set to avoid a long running transaction.. It's just calling run_maintnance() in a loop. If you're only running it on one partition set, there is no need to use the procedure and you can just use the function directly.

@keithf4 keithf4 merged commit 98d6e52 into pgpartman:development Feb 20, 2025
4 checks passed
@fgrosse
Copy link
Contributor Author

fgrosse commented Feb 21, 2025

Thanks for the explanation :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants