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

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.

The second paragraph tries to describe what happens when we use a
seqscan and sort -- that is, we have USING INDEX, but we don't scan
using that index (that is, CLUSTER that uses a sort). That requires
additional storage (the tuplestore that is sorted).

Maybe we need to reword both so that this is more obvious?

> No objections regarding the "Notes on Concurrent Operation" section.

Thanks for reading!

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think 'good design'
is when the page doesn't irritate the living f*ck out of me." (JWZ)