On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 10:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:31 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > A customer recently pointed me to
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-vacuum.html
> > and asked if I agree with the statement there that a nightly
> > scheduled VACUUM were a good idea:
>
> Agred. A nightly vacuum is definitely not something for "most people" anymore.
>
> But also. "active production databases". Surely we recommend regular vacuum in *all*
> databases when it's primarily driven by autovacuum? At least all active. But
> there's nothing special about "production"? Since we're tweaking the wording,
> I would suggest removing that reference as well.
You are right. Done in the attached.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
