From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |
Date: | 2024-01-30 23:06:17 |
Message-ID: | ZbmA6Vxgg1VmLcIh@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:37:12PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Jan-30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > some basic variant (without autovacuum support) can be good enough. We have
> > no autovacuum support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and I don't see a necessity
> > for it (sure, it can be limited by my perspective) . The necessity of
> > reducing table size is not too common (a lot of use cases are better
> > covered by using partitioning), but sometimes it is, and then buildin
> > simple available solution can be helpful.
>
> That's my thinking as well.
Or, yes, I'd agree about that. This can make for a much better user
experience. I'm just not sure how that stuff would be shaped and how
much ground it would need to cover.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-30 23:06:42 | Re: 003_extrafiles.pl test fails on Windows with the newer Perl versions |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-01-30 23:03:23 | Re: Incorrect cost for MergeAppend |