Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

From: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2025-03-03 18:40:27
Message-ID: 49792.1741027227@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> On 2025-Feb-26, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > @@ -403,39 +381,38 @@ cluster_rel(Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, ClusterParams *params)
> > * would work in most respects, but the index would only get marked as
> > * indisclustered in the current database, leading to unexpected behavior
> > * if CLUSTER were later invoked in another database.
> > + *
> > + * REPACK does not set indisclustered. XXX Not sure I understand the
> > + * comment above: how can an attribute be set "only in the current
> > + * database"?
> > */
>
> Regarding this XXX comment, what's going on here is this: a CLUSTER
> command needs to remember the index that a table is clustered on. We
> keep track of this in pg_index.indisclustered. But pg_index is a local
> relation, not shared across databases -- so the current CLUSTER command
> can effect the update on the current database's pg_index only, not on
> other databases. So if the user were to run CLUSTER on one database
> specifying an index, then connect to another one and expect CLUSTER
> without specifying an index to honor the previously specified index,
> that would not work. Naturally this is only a problem for shared
> catalogs. Not being able to handle this for shared catalogs is not a
> big loss.

Thanks for explanation. The reason I failed to understand this was probably
that I tried to imagine something worse.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matheus Alcantara 2025-03-03 18:45:59 Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-03-03 18:38:38 Re: bug when apply fast default mechanism for adding new column over domain with default value