On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:14 AM John Naylor <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:46 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > > > I guess I'm ultimately imagining the new options as replacing the > > > vacuumdb implementation. IOW vacuumdb would just use MIN_(M)XID_AGE > > > behind the scenes (as would a new top-level command). > > > > I had the same idea. > > This seems to be the motivating reason for wanting new configurability > on the server side. In any case, new knobs are out of scope for this > thread. If the use case is compelling enough, may I suggest starting a > new thread?
The purpose of this thread is to provide a way for users to run vacuum only very old tables (while skipping index cleanup, etc.), and the way is not limited to introducing a new top-level VACUUM statement yet, right? A new top-level VACUUM statement you proposed seems a good idea but trying to achieve it by extending the current VACUUM statement is also a good idea. So I think the ideas like MIN_XID_AGE option and new table selector in VACUUM statement are relevant to this thread. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
