Hi! On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 15:31, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> FWIW a newer, more modern and more trustworthy alternative to pg_repack > is pg_squeeze, which I discovered almost by random chance, and soon > discovered I liked it much more. Can you please clarify this a bit more? What is the exact reason for pg_squeeze being more trustworthy than pg_repack? Is there something about the logical replication approach that makes it more bulletproof than the trigger-based repack approach? Also, I was thinking about pg_repack vs pg_squeeze being used for the VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY feature, and I'm a bit suspicious about the latter. If I understand correctly, we essentially parse the whole WAL to obtain info about one particular relation changes. That may be a big overhead, whereas the trigger approach does not suffer from this. So, there is the chance that VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY will never keep up with vacuumed relation changes. Am I right?
