On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:37:12PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Jan-30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > some basic variant (without autovacuum support) can be good enough. We have
> > no autovacuum support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and I don't see a necessity
> > for it (sure, it can be limited by my perspective) . The necessity of
> > reducing table size is not too common (a lot of use cases are better
> > covered by using partitioning), but sometimes it is, and then buildin
> > simple available solution can be helpful.
>
> That's my thinking as well.
Or, yes, I'd agree about that. This can make for a much better user
experience. I'm just not sure how that stuff would be shaped and how
much ground it would need to cover.
--
Michael
