Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block
Date: 2022-11-17 20:00:45
Message-ID: 20221117200045.GL11463@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 05:14:07PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> I think this requesting autovacuum worker should be a distinct
> command. Or at least an explicit option to vacuum.

+1. I was going to suggest VACUUM (NOWAIT) ..

--
Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-11-17 20:04:57 Re: redundant check of msg in does_not_exist_skipping
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-11-17 19:55:28 Re: [PoC] configurable out of disk space elog level