Re: Vacuumdb on a table

On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 17:08 +0000, Murthy Nunna wrote:
> I retried with -F. That actually worked and lowered the relfrozenxid of the table.
>
> 1) I am wondering if -F option interferes with application (table lock, row lock etc).

No, it only does more work and wil use more resources.

> 2) It says "aggressively vacuuming "<table>". Do you always see this with -F option?
>    Is it harmless in terms of locking select/insert/update/delete statements from application?

"Aggressive" is not as nasty as it sounds.  It just means that it won't skip pages that are
all-visible or pinned by other backends.



My guess is that

   vacuumdb --disable-page-skipping --no-index-cleanup -d <database> -t <table>

would have worked as well, and it would have been cheaper.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe