Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can't complete after ~105M concurrent updates/deletes

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:

> On 2026-Oct-06, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > I suspect there's a thinko in the "Notes on Resources" section. Shouldn't the
> > first paragraph start like this?
> >
> > "When the USING INDEX clause is given and an index scan is chosen, ..."
>
> Hmm, no -- this paragraph tries to explain what happens when we use the
> unsorted option, _or_ we use the sorted option but we use a indexscan to
> implement it. So either the VACUUM FULL, or the indexscan based
> CLUSTER. In this case we only have one extra copy of the table.

ok. What I find disturbing in the first sentence is the "but" conjunction:

"... that clause is given but an index scan is chosen ..."

Shouldn't it rater be "and"?

When I read "but", I usually expect a contradiction. However I see no
contradiction between specifying the USING INDEX clause and choosing index
scan.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com