Re: Lock-free compaction. Why not?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:20 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:00 PM Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi
> <ahmedyarubhani(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > That is a very useful thread and I'll keep on following it but it is not
> exactly what I'm trying to achieve here.
> > You see, there is a great difference between VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY
> and adding compaction to lazy vacuuming. The main factor here is resource
> utilization: a lot of companies have enough data that would need days to be
> vacuumed concurrently. Is the implementation discussed there pausable or at
> least cancellable? Does it take into account periods of high resource
> utilization by user-generated queries?
>
> If you want to discuss the patch on the other thread, you should go
> read that thread and perhaps reply there, rather than replying to this
> message. It's important to keep all of the discussion of a certain
> patch together, which doesn't happen if you reply like this.
>
> Also, you've already been asked not to top-post and you just did it
> again, so I'm guessing that you don't know what is meant by the term.
> So please read this:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20230608210806/idallen.com/topposting.html
>
> If you're going to post to this mailing list, it is important to
> understand the conventions and expectations that people have here. If
> you insist on doing things differently than what everyone else does,
> you're going to annoy a lot of people.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Oh I'm so sorry for the top-posting. I didn't even notice the warning
before. I'm not discussing exactly what is in that thread but rather an
alternative implementation. That being said, I'll do my own research, try
to get a working implementation and then come back to this thread.
Sorry again :)