Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Well, there doesn't seem to be a TODO for partial/restartable vacuums,
>> which were mentioned upthread. This is a really desirable feature for
>> big databases and removes one of the reasons to partition large
>> tables.
> I would agree that partial vacuums would be very useful.
I think everyone agrees that partial vacuums would be useful / *A Good
Thing* but it's the implementation that is the issue. I was thinking
about Alvaro's recent work to make vacuum deal with TOAST tables
separately, which is almost like a partial vacuum since it effectively
splits the vacuum work up into multiple independent blocks of work, the
limitation obviously being that it can only split the work around
TOAST. Is there anyway that vacuum could work per relfile since we
already split tables into files that are never greater than 1G? I would
think that if Vacuum never had more than 1G of work to do at any given
moment it would make it much more manageable.