Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables

On 05/05/2026 16:32, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I decided against pushing the other patch.  Although I would have
> preferred to add a test, its cost seems not trivial: there are three
> full-database scans in it (one for each command), and that seemed a bit
> excessive.  (There's also one extra initdb, but I'm not sure that part
> is too bad since we've optimized that particular part.)

Fair enough.

> I also considered backpatching, since the code has been like this
> essentially forever (i.e. at least since pg14).  However, I don't
> remember any complaints about this and I would hate to destabilize
> things for people without an excellent reason.  Maybe we can reconsider
> after this month's minors, if somebody shows up with vehement opinions
> about it.

Yeah, since pretty much nobody complained about it, I guess it's indeed 
safer to leave it in PG19.

Thanks for pushing it!

Best, Jim