On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the > Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead > out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable > background process. Certainly any Oracle DBA will tell you that huge
I completely agree with this. If the recent work on lowering the overall cost ov VACUUM on loaded systems pays off, then I think there can be no argument that the work-now, vacuum-later strategy is the best approach, simply because it deals with the outlying and unexpected cases better than the alternatives. I know too many people who have been burned by running out of rollback segments when some use pattern emerged that they hadn't planned for. A -- Andrew Sullivan ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster