| From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs |
| Date: | 2005-09-01 04:21:58 |
| Message-ID: | slrndhd0f6.1vfu.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2005-09-01, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:57:02AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> > If you're using autovacuum then the problem is already taken care of.
>>
>> autovacuum will respond only to UPDATEs and DELETEs. In the scenario I
>> outline, these will *never* occur on the largest tables. A VACUUM would
>> still eventually be required to freeze long lived tuples and this would
>> not be performed by autovacuum.
>
> Hum, I don't understand -- if you don't want to vacuum the table, why
> run vacuum at all? You can (as of 8.1) disable autovacuum for specific
> tables. The exception is that you are forced to run a database-wide
> VACUUM once in a while (every billion-and-so), but this will hopefully
> disappear in 8.2 too,
Wishful thinking, or do you have a concrete plan to achieve it?
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-09-01 04:22:19 | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs |
| Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-09-01 04:18:37 | Re: TODO item: set proper permissions on non-system schemas |