Re: Why vacuum?

"Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
> 
> Not to mention the recent thread here about people recovering data that
> was accidently deleted, or from damaged db files: the old tuples serve
> as redundant backup, in a way. Not a real compelling reason to keep a
> non-overwriting smgr, but still a surprise bonus for those who need it.

The optimal would be a configurable behaviour. I wouldn't enable it on a
users table, neither on a log-type table (the former is a slowly
changing table, the second is a table with few updates/deletes), but a
fast-changing table like an  active sessions table would benefit a lot.

Currently, my active sessions table grows by 100K every 20 seconds, I
have to constantly vacuum it to keep the things reasonable. Other tables
would benefit a lot, pg_listener for example.

Bye!