On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 08:20, Simon Riggs <simon.ri...@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/
