On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 19:48 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 5:36 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:32 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > Looking at the Git history, most of that paragraph is from a time
> > > > when autovacuum did not yet exist or was
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 5:36 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:32 AM Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> Looking at the Git history, most of that paragraph is from a time
> >> when autovacuum did not yet exist or was much less reliable than it
> >> is now. So I suggest removing al
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:32 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Looking at the Git history, most of that paragraph is from a time
>> when autovacuum did not yet exist or was much less reliable than it
>> is now. So I suggest removing all that and pointing to autovacuum
>> instead, as done in the attach
On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 10:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:31 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > A customer recently pointed me to
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-vacuum.html
> > and asked if I agree with the statement there that a nightly
> > scheduled VACUUM we
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:31 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> A customer recently pointed me to
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-vacuum.html
> and asked if I agree with the statement there that a nightly
> scheduled VACUUM were a good idea:
>
> "We recommend that active production databases
