Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-01-09 Th 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I'm not happy with the idea of having this new command be VACUUM (FULL
> CONCURRENTLY).  It's a bit of an absurd name if you ask me.  Heck, even
> VACUUM (FULL) seems a bit absurd nowadays.
>
> 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
>

My $0.02:

COMPACT tablename ...


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com