Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Banck
Subject Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Date
Msg-id 67851b65.170a0220.2f4d00.41de@mx.google.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: Reorder shutdown sequence, to flush pgstats later
Next
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection