On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:20 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:00 PM Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi > <ahmedyarubh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That is a very useful thread and I'll keep on following it but it is not > exactly what I'm trying to achieve here. > > You see, there is a great difference between VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY > and adding compaction to lazy vacuuming. The main factor here is resource > utilization: a lot of companies have enough data that would need days to be > vacuumed concurrently. Is the implementation discussed there pausable or at > least cancellable? Does it take into account periods of high resource > utilization by user-generated queries? > > If you want to discuss the patch on the other thread, you should go > read that thread and perhaps reply there, rather than replying to this > message. It's important to keep all of the discussion of a certain > patch together, which doesn't happen if you reply like this. > > Also, you've already been asked not to top-post and you just did it > again, so I'm guessing that you don't know what is meant by the term. > So please read this: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20230608210806/idallen.com/topposting.html > > If you're going to post to this mailing list, it is important to > understand the conventions and expectations that people have here. If > you insist on doing things differently than what everyone else does, > you're going to annoy a lot of people. > > -- > Robert Haas > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com Oh I'm so sorry for the top-posting. I didn't even notice the warning before. I'm not discussing exactly what is in that thread but rather an alternative implementation. That being said, I'll do my own research, try to get a working implementation and then come back to this thread. Sorry again :)
