On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 13:32 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > Read-Only Tables > > ---------------- > > Postgres supports the concept of freezing tuples, so they can live > > forever within the database without needing further writes. Currently > > there is no command that will guarantee that a table has been completely > > frozen. This makes it difficult to reliably write data files to WORM > > media for longer term archiving. (WORM means Write-Once, Read-Many). > > It's also a pain having to VACUUM a large table again just because a > > small number of rows need to be frozen. > > > > I'm not an expert at all, but I'd like to understand this, do you plan that > READ-ONLY tables wouldn't even store transaction information? That should > save quite a lot of space. Maybe when the table would be moved to the > compressed tablespace, MVCC information could be dropped too? Of course that > would avoid future insert & update possibilities though.
It could, but its a lot of work for little gain. The tuple headers look like they will compress fairly well, so why bother to remove them at all? -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
