On 2005-09-01, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
