Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
От | Michael Banck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 67851b65.170a0220.2f4d00.41de@mx.google.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 09:01:54AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 2025-01-09 Th 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Maybe we should have a new toplevel command. Some ideas that have been > > thrown around: > > > > - RETABLE (it's like REINDEX, but for tables) > > - ALTER TABLE <tab> SQUEEZE > > - SQUEEZE <table> > > - VACUUM (SQUEEZE) > > - VACUUM (COMPACT) > > - MAINTAIN <tab> COMPACT > > - MAINTAIN <tab> SQUEEZE I don't like any of them a lot :-/ > COMPACT tablename ... That sounds like it would compress content rather than just rewrite it normally to get rid of bloat. I think REORG (or REPACK, but that has not history elsewhere) would fit best, we don't need to emulate the myriad of DB2 options... Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: