RE: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation

Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-28T01:05:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Add TRUNCATE parameter to VACUUM.

  2. Add vacuum_truncate reloption.

  3. Allow VACUUM to be run with index cleanup disabled.

From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com]
> I don't think that a VACUUM option would be out of place, but a GUC
> sounds like an attractive nuisance to me.  It will encourage people to
> just flip it blindly instead of considering the particular cases where
> they need that behavior, and I think chances are good that most people
> who do that will end up being sad.

Ouch, I sent my previous mail before reading this.  I can understand it may be cumbersome to identify and specify each table, so I tend to agree the parameter in postgresql, which is USERSET to allow ALTER DATABASE/USER SET to tune specific databases and applications.  But should the vacuuming of system catalogs also follow this setting?


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa