The world rejoiced as hannu(at)tm(dot)ee (Hannu Krosing) wrote:
> Christopher Browne kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 02:15:
>> Well, actually, the case where it _would_ be troublesome would be
>> where there was a combination of huge tables needing vacuuming and
>> smaller ones that are _heavily_ updated (e.g. - account balances),
>> where pg_autovacuum might take so long on some big tables that it
>> wouldn't get to the smaller ones often enough.
> Can't one just run a _separate_ VACUUM on those smaller tables ?
Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having a daemon that tries to
manage this all for you.
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
"...once can imagine the government's problem. This is all pretty
magical stuff to them. If I were trying to terminate the operations
of a witch coven, I'd probably seize everything in sight. How would I
tell the ordinary household brooms from the getaway vehicles?"
-- John Perry Barlow
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2003-11-03 13:50:00|
|Subject: Re: adding support for posix_fadvise()|
|Previous:||From: Miguel Biscaia||Date: 2003-11-03 09:40:33|
|Subject: unsubscribe firstname.lastname@example.org|