Tom Lane wrote: > > Exactly. VACUUM sucks (ahem) in all ways but one: it pushes the > maintenance costs associated with MVCC out of the foreground query code > paths and into an asynchronous cleanup task. AFAIK we are the only DBMS > that does it that way. Personally I believe it's a fundamentally > superior approach --- because when you are under peak load you can defer > the cleanup work --- but you do need to pay attention to make sure that > the async cleanup isn't postponed too long. We're still fooling around > with autovacuum and related tuning issues to make it work painlessly... >
Should this paragraph be added to the FAQ here? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
