| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Aggressive autovacuuming ? |
| Date: | 2010-06-23 17:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimkgpGDrIotTqVrKJbGXvk2vG2dpDoC1kWKVGYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The largest consequence I can see at the moment is that when I get a
>> full vacuum (for preventing transaction-id wraparound) it would be
>
> I assume you mean the automatic database wide vacuum. I don't think
> 8.4 and above need that anymore. I thnk 8.3 does that too, but I'm
> not 100% sure.
8.4 (and 9.0) do still need to do vacuums to freeze tuples before
transaction ID wraparound occurs. This is not to be confused with
VACUUM FULL, which is something else altogether.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-06-23 18:20:46 | Re: Aggressive autovacuuming ? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-23 17:43:15 | Re: cpu bound postgresql setup. |