Thanks. I'll investigate and let you know how things go
Mike
Tom Lane wrote:
Mike Darretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm an application developer trying to understand a pg data partition
issue. We are storing large objects (gifs) at a rate of about 1GIG /day.
After about a week, most of
... forgot to mention ...
Mike Darretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are running Postgres 7.4 with the incremental vacuum process active.
Also make sure you have an up-to-date version of pg_autovacuum. The
early releases had bugs that could prevent it from vacuuming very large
tables at all
Mike Darretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm an application developer trying to understand a pg data partition
> issue. We are storing large objects (gifs) at a rate of about 1GIG /day.
> After about a week, most of the objects are recycled -- that is, an
> insert triggers a delete of a simil
I'm an application developer trying to understand a pg data partition
issue. We are storing large objects (gifs) at a rate of about 1GIG /day.
After about a week, most of the objects are recycled -- that is, an
insert triggers a delete of a similar object. The postgres data
partition, though, c
