On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 19:52, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 03:10, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 08:20, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Temp tables are actually easier, since we don't need any of the
> > > concurrency features we get with lazy vacuum.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> New patch, which does this, when in a xact block
>
> 1. For temp tables, only VACUUM FULL is allowed
> 2. For persistent tables, an AV task is created to perform the vacuum,
> which eventually performs a vacuum
>
> The patch works, but there are various aspects of the design that need
> input. Thoughts?
New version.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/