Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-06-07 kell 17:45, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby: > Plus, if the only issue here is in fact the long-running transaction for > vacuum, there's other ways to address that which would be a lot less > intrusive than doing something like going to 64 bit XIDs. IIRC, in 8.2 > vacuum will start a new transaction every time it fills up > maintenance_work_mem, so just setting that low could solve the problem > (at the expense of a heck of a lot of extra IO).
If the aim is to *only* avoid transaction wraparound, then maybe we could introduce VACUUM FREEZE ONLY; which never removes any old tuples, but instead just marks them by setting xmin=xmax for them, in addition to its freezing of live-and-visible-to-all tuples. This would avoid touching indexes at all and may well be what is desired for tables with only very little updates/deletes. -- ---------------- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
