On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > It sounds like it might be better to name this "VACUUM (FAST)” and document > that it skips some of the normal (and necessary) work that vacuum does and is > only suitable for avoiding wraparounds and not sufficient for avoiding bloat
We could do that, but I don't see why that's better than VACUUM (SKIP_INDEX_SCANS) or similar. There are, perhaps, multiple kinds of shortcuts that could make vacuum run faster, but skipping index scans is what it is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
