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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
