Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:04:45PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>
>>And if pg_autovacuum is running along with postmaster all the time, with
>>aggressive polling like 5 sec, the database should not accumulate any dead
>>tuples nor it would suffer xid wraparound as there are vacuum happening
>>constantly.
>
>
> The database can suffer XID wraparound anyway if there's at least one
> table without updates, because the autovacuum daemon will never vacuum
> it (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
If a table is never updated and hence not vacuumed at all, why would it be
involved in a transaction that would have xid wrap around?
pg_autovacuum takes care of insert/updates/deletes. If a table never
participates in above three and hence escape from pg_autovauum, it also escapes
from xid wraparound, isn't it?
Shridhar
