Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block
Date: 2022-11-16 22:26:03
Message-ID: 1690542.1668637563@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I think this requesting autovacuum worker should be a distinct
> command. Or at least an explicit option to vacuum.

+1. That'd reduce confusion, and perhaps we could remove some
of the restrictions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matheus Alcantara 2022-11-16 22:29:26 Re: Index not getting cleaned even though vacuum is running
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-11-16 22:14:30 Re: Standardizing how pg_waldump presents recovery conflict XID cutoffs