Re: Request for feature: VACUUM FULL updates pg_stat_all_tables.last_vacuum

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 13:39 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2024-05-09 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > Because vacuum is vacuum.
>>
>> The problem is that the two commands do something different, so it
>> would be misleading. Renaming VACUUM (FULL) is a good idea in principle,
>> but I think that is more than 10 years too late. The compatibility
>> break would be too painful.
>>
>
> Make VACUUM (FULL) a synonym for RECREATE TABLE, then say in the docs that
> VACUUM (FULL) is deprecated.
>
> Then drop it in PG 27...
>
> Perhaps you could write a patch to add a column "last_rewritten"
>> to "pg_stat_all_tables"...
>>
>
> I'm a worse C programmer than I am a DBA.
>

It's never late.

I like the idea of RECREATE TABLE and deprecating VACUUM FULL a lot. It
always seemed to me a non-user-friendly naming choice like pg_xlog or
psql's \q, both of which are solved already.

With RECREATE TABLE, one day, we would be probably have RECREATE TABLE
CONCURRENTLY implemented, making pg_repack less needed.

>