Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

Hi!

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 15:31, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> FWIW a newer, more modern and more trustworthy alternative to pg_repack
> is pg_squeeze, which I discovered almost by random chance, and soon
> discovered I liked it much more.

Can you please clarify this a bit more? What is the exact reason for
pg_squeeze being more trustworthy than pg_repack?
Is there something about the logical replication approach that makes
it more bulletproof than the trigger-based repack approach?

Also, I was thinking about pg_repack vs pg_squeeze being used for the
VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY feature, and I'm a bit suspicious about the
latter.
If I understand correctly, we essentially parse the whole WAL to
obtain info about one particular relation changes. That may be a big
overhead, whereas the trigger approach does
not suffer from this. So, there is the chance that VACUUM FULL
CONCURRENTLY will never keep up with vacuumed relation changes. Am I
right?