Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> The way I read the thread so far is that there are multiple
> requirements:
> * Shrink a table efficiently - when time and space available to do so
To be addressed by the CLUSTER-based solution (VACUUM REWRITE or
whatever we call it).
> * Shrink a table in place - when no space available
To be addressed by the UPDATE-style tuple-mover (which could be thought
of as VACUUM FULL rewritten to not use any special mechanisms).
> * Shrink a table concurrently - when no dedicated time available
Wishful thinking, which should not stop us from proceeding with the
solutions we know how to implement.
regards, tom lane