On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 08:20, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Temp tables are actually easier, since we don't need any of the
> concurrency features we get with lazy vacuum. So the answer is to
> always run a VACUUM FULL on temp tables since this skips any issues
> with indexes etc..
So I see 3 options for what to do next
1. Force the FULL option for all tables, when executed in a
transaction block. This gets round the reasonable objections to
running a concurrent vacuum in a shared xact block. As Justin points
out, CLUSTER is already supported, which uses the same code.
2. Force the FULL option for temp tables, when executed in a
transaction block. In a later patch, queue up an autovacuum run for
regular tables.
3. Return with feedback this patch. (But then what happens with temp tables?)
Thoughts?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
