On 4/22/15 6:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My point is that for the life of 200M transactions, you would have the overhead of an additional file per table in the file system, and updates of that. I just don't know if the overhead over the long time period would be smaller than the VACUUM FREEZE. It might be fine --- I don't know. People seem to focus on the big activities, while many small activities can lead to larger slowdowns.
Ahh. This wouldn't be for the life of 200M transactions; it would be a permanent fork, just like the VM is.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
