On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 11:32:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I can imagine sometime in the future where we need to get rid of all > instances of pglz so we can reassign that compression code to something > else. But would we insist on a mass VACUUM FULL to make that happen? > Doubt it. You'd want a tool that would make that happen over time, > in the background; like the mechanisms that have been discussed for > enabling checksums on-the-fly.
Well, I can imagine that some people could afford being more aggressive here even if it implies some downtime and if they are not willing to afford the deployment of a second instance for a dump/restore or a logirep setup. (The parallel with data checksums is partially true, as you can do a switch of checksums with physical replication as the page's checksums are only written when pushed out of shared buffers, not when they are written into WAL. This needs a second instance, of course.) > In the meantime I'm +1 for dropping this logic from VACUUM FULL. > I don't even want to spend enough more time on it to confirm the > different overhead measurements that have been reported. Agreed. It looks like we are heading toward doing just that for this release. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
