On 2015-04-20 17:13:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Didn't you think any of the TODO threads had workable solutions? And > don't expect adding an additional file per relation will be zero cost > --- added over the lifetime of 200M transactions, I question if this > approach would be a win.
Note that normally you'd not run with a 200M transaction freeze max age on a busy server. Rather around a magnitude more. Think about this being used on a time partionioned table. Right now all the partitions have to be fully rescanned on a regular basis - quite painful. With something like this normally only the newest partitions will have to be. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
