Gregory Stark wrote: > In that case the problem is dealing with different usage patterns on different > tables. There might be a way to solve just that use case such as deferring WAL > records for those tables. That doesn't guarantee inter-table data consistency > if there were other queries which read from those tables and updated other > tables based on that data though. Perhaps there's a solution for that too > though.
There was a suggestion (Simon - from you?) of a transaction voluntarily restricting itself to a set of tables. That would obviously reduce the impact of all the options where the accessed tables weren't being updated (where update = vacuum + HOT if I've got this straight). -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
