On 3/10/10 3:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > I think that means that a > vacuum_defer_cleanup of up to about 100 or so (it depends on the width > of your counter record) might be reasonable as a general suggestion > but anything higher will depend on understanding the specific system.
100 wouldn't be useful at all. It would increase bloat without doing anything about query cancel except on a very lightly used system. > With vacuum_defer_cleanup that will no longer be true. > It will be as if you always have a query lasting n transactions in > your system at all times. Yep, but until we get XID-publish-to-master working in 9.1, I think it's probably the best we can do. At least it's no *worse* than having a long-running query on the master at all times. --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
