Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can't complete after ~105M concurrent updates/deletes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Antonin Houska
Subject Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can't complete after ~105M concurrent updates/deletes
Date
Msg-id 14225.1790514837@localhost
Whole thread
In response to Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can't complete after ~105M concurrent updates/deletes  (Radim Marek <radim@boringsql.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Radim Marek <radim@boringsql.com> wrote:

> Hi Shihao, thank you for the confirmation. I wasn't aware of the enhancements series.
>
> It's definitely not a performance issue in the doc; rathe a resource limit. Since 19 will go with this limitation I
attacheda small doc patch 
> about this. Hope I got the use of 'other' correctly based on current version
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/19/sql-repack.html

It's unfortunate that REPACK is probably the only command that exercises this
combo CID limit. However, there can be other limits, e.g. REPACK being unable
to catch up if the change rate is too high, excessive usage of disk for the
decoded changes, etc.

I think that the most important thing for the user to know is that the purpose
of REPACK is to improve performance (via bloat removal and/or clustering),
whereas "failsafe VACUUM" (i.e. VACUUM with INDEX_CLEANUP set to off) should
be used to avoid the risk of XID wraparound. This kind of VACCUM is probably
much faster and less likely to fail.

I don't have a good idea about the wording right now.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Xiangxin Zeng
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve Hash/Merge Join estimate accuracy when all predicates are Hash/Merge clauses
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Direct TOAST v2, faster, smaller and no migration needed