From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The empty pages not reclaimed problem is something that did indeed
get fixed in the post-7.2 days. I _think_ it was 7.4, but it might
have been 7.3.
In short, 7.4.x is indeed a good resolution to your issue.
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:48:04AM -, Julian Scarfe wrote:
b) Only a dump-restore major version upgrade (which we'll do next time we
can take the system out for long enough) will avoid the issue.
Long enough could be a minutes or seconds issue if you use Slony-I,
I've heard ... (Of course
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:48:04AM -, Julian Scarfe wrote:
b) Only a dump-restore major version upgrade (which we'll do next
time we
can take the system out for long enough) will avoid the issue.
On 6 Dec 2004, at 16:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Long enough could be a minutes or seconds issue if
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera):
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:48:04AM -, Julian Scarfe wrote:
b) Only a dump-restore major version upgrade (which we'll do next time we
can take the system out for long enough) will avoid the issue.
Long enough could be a minutes or seconds issue if
I've got a box running 7.2.1 (yes, I know :-() in which an index for a
rapidly turning over (and regularly vacuumed) table is growing steadily in
size. The index in question is on a timestamp field that is just set to
now() on the entry of the row, to enable the query that clears out old data
to
Julian Scarfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got a box running 7.2.1 (yes, I know :-() in which an index for a
rapidly turning over (and regularly vacuumed) table is growing steadily in
size. The index in question is on a timestamp field that is just set to
now() on the entry of the row, to
Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Scarfe) mumbled into her beard:
I've got a box running 7.2.1 (yes, I know :-() in which an index for
a rapidly turning over (and regularly vacuumed) table is growing
steadily in size. The index in question is on a timestamp field
that is just set
