Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2024-01-30 11:37:12
Message-ID: 202401301137.opydii7tudzt@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-01-30 11:42:17 Re: meson + libpq_pipeline
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2024-01-30 11:26:05 Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString