Horton

Re: Lock-free compaction. Why not?

Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi <ahmedyarubhani@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2024-07-22T12:42:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 08:39:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> What the extensions that are out there seem to do is, as I understand
> it, an online table rewrite with concurrent change capture, and then
> you apply the changes to the output table afterward. That has the
> problem that if the changes are happening faster than you can apply
> them, the operation does not terminate. But, enough people seem to be
> happy with this kind of solution that we should perhaps look harder at
> doing something along these lines in core.

I believe this is being discussed here:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5117/
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5186.1706694913%40antos


Michael

Commits

  1. Support rewritten-based full vacuum as VACUUM FULL. Traditional