Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs

On 2005-09-01, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> 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