On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:21:58AM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote: > 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?
We talked about it during the autovacuum discussions just before feature freeze. There is a vague plan which I intend to study eventually. -- Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com "On the other flipper, one wrong move and we're Fatal Exceptions" (T.U.X.: Term Unit X - http://www.thelinuxreview.com/TUX/) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
