| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling Heap-Only Tuples |
| Date: | 2023-09-20 03:02:42 |
| Message-ID: | 83d69b98777bbb9050198c5ac512574a489028ab.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I know people will try to use it for instant compaction too, and
> there it's worth remembering why we removed old-style VACUUM FULL. The
> main problem is that it was mind-bogglingly slow. The other really bad
> problem is that it caused massive index bloat. I think any system
> that's based on moving around my tuples right now to make my table
> smaller right now is likely to have similar issues.
I had the same feeling that this is sort of bringing back old-style
VACUUM (FULL). But I don't think that index bloat is a show stopper
these days, when we have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, so I am not worried.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-20 03:04:26 | Re: pg_rewind with cascade standby doesn't work well |
| Previous Message | Paul Jungwirth | 2023-09-20 02:50:10 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |