Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 7. veebruar 2005, 19:01-0300), kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
> > Also, why must it be run outside of transaction block if it can be > > rollbacked ? > > A vacuum actually uses several transactions, so it wouldn't work as the > user would expect if run in a transaction. The first one is committed > rather early and new ones are opened and closed. (One per table, IIRC.) So I guess that making it commit and open new transaction at a regular interval (like each minute) during vacuuming single table would not alter its visible behaviour. That would solve my problem of long-running vacuums on large tables polluting unrelated small but heavily updated tables with dead tuples. I'll take a peak at code and try to come up with a naive proposal you can shoot down ;) -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
