Chris Browne wrote:
> It strikes me as a slick idea for autovacuum to take on that
> behaviour. If the daily backup runs for 2h, then it is quite futile
> to bother vacuuming a table multiple times during that 2h period when
> none of the tuples obsoleted during the 2h period will be able to be
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Chris Browne wrote:
It strikes me as a slick idea for autovacuum to take on that
behaviour. If the daily backup runs for 2h, then it is quite futile
to bother vacuuming a table multiple times during that 2h period when
none of the tuples obsoleted during the 2h period wil
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, yeah, sounds useful. There's one implementation issue to notice
> however, and it's that the autovacuum process dies and restarts for each
> iteration, so there's no way for it to remember previous state unless
> it's saved somewhere permanent, as
