Horton

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-01-30T11:37:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2024-Jan-30, Pavel Stehule wrote:

> some basic variant (without autovacuum support) can be good enough. We have
> no autovacuum support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and I don't see a necessity
> for it (sure, it can be limited by my perspective) . The necessity of
> reducing table size is not too common (a lot of use cases are better
> covered by using partitioning), but sometimes it is, and then buildin
> simple available solution can be helpful.

That's my thinking as well.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Commits

  1. Add CONCURRENTLY option to REPACK

  2. Introduce the REPACK command

  3. Adjust signature of cluster_rel() and its subroutines

  4. Simplify signature of RewriteTable