RE: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Lincoln Yeoh" <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-09 01:29:43
Message-ID: ECEHIKNFIMMECLEBJFIGAEDGCBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> You'll still need to VACUUM to get rid of the obsoleted versions of the
> row. The point of the planned 7.2 changes is to make VACUUM cheap and
> nonintrusive enough so that you can run it frequently on tables that are
> seeing continual updates.

If it becomes non-intrusive, then why not have PostgreSQL run VACUUM
automatically when certain conditions (user-configurable, load, changes per
table, etc.) are met.

All the sys admin would need to do is put the VACCUUM FULL in a cron job.

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-09 01:46:37 Re: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Previous Message R Talbot 2001-07-09 00:35:37 (no subject)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-09 01:31:04 Re: [PATCH] Patch to make pg_hba.conf handle virtualhost access control and samehost keyword
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2001-07-09 01:26:33 ADD CONSTRAINT behaviour question