On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 11:54, Simon Riggs <simon.ri...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > 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
Attached patch implements VACUUM (BACKGROUND). There are quite a few small details to consider; please read the docs and comments. There is a noticeable delay before the background vacuum starts. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
background_vacuum.v3.patch
Description: Binary data
