On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
> It sounds like it might be better to name this "VACUUM (FAST)” and document that it skips some of the normal (and
necessary)work that vacuum does and is only suitable for avoiding wraparounds and not sufficient for avoiding bloat
We could do that, but I don't see why that's better than VACUUM
(SKIP_INDEX_SCANS) or similar. There are, perhaps, multiple kinds of
shortcuts that could make vacuum run faster, but skipping index scans
is what it is.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
