Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRD2zGwNX_LKy_uMGiqRfRPrk9mb0mqEVFsyhaePyL8B0g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?  (Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi

ne 21. 7. 2024 v 17:13 odesílatel Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> napsal:
Hi!
I'm interested in the vacuum concurrently feature being inside the
core, so will try to review patch set and give valuable feedback. For
now, just a few little thoughts..



One more thing is about pg_squeeze background workers. They act in an
autovacuum-like fashion, aren't they? Maybe we can support this kind
of relation processing in core too?

I don't think it is necessary when this feature will be an internal feature.

I agree so this feature is very important, I proposed it (and I very happy so Tonda implemented it), but I am not sure, if usage of this should be automatized, and if it should be, then

a) probably autovacuum should do,
b) we can move a discussion after vacuum full concurrently will be merged to upstream, please. Isn't very practical to have too many open targets.

Regards

Pavel

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Kirill Reshke
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Следующее
От: Michail Nikolaev
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative