Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Well it's worse than that. If you have long-running transactions that would
> cause rollback-segment-overflow in Oracle then the equivalent price in
> Postgres would be table bloat *regardless* of how frequently you vacuum.
Isn't that a bit pessimistic? In tables which mostly grow (as opposed
to deletes and updates) and where most inserts succeed (instead of
rolling back), I would have expected postgresql not to bloat
tables no matter how long my transactions last.
And it's been a while; but I thought transactions like that could
overflow rollback segments in that other database.
