On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 20:00, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 05:14:07PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > I think this requesting autovacuum worker should be a distinct > > command. Or at least an explicit option to vacuum. > > +1. I was going to suggest VACUUM (NOWAIT) ..
Yes, I have no problem with an explicit command. At the moment the patch runs VACUUM in the background in an autovacuum process, but the call is asynchronous, since we do not wait for the command to finish (or even start). So the command names I was thinking of would be one of these: VACUUM (BACKGROUND) or VACUUM (AUTOVACUUM) - which might be clearer or VACUUM (ASYNC) - which is more descriptive of the behavior or we could go for both VACUUM (BACKGROUND, ASYNC) - since this allows us to have a BACKGROUND, SYNC version in the future Thoughts? -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
