On 4/22/15 6:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> My point is that for the life of 200M transactions, you would have the
> overhead of an additional file per table in the file system, and updates
> of that. I just don't know if the overhead over the long time period
> would be smaller than the VACUUM FREEZE. It might be fine --- I don't
> know. People seem to focus on the big activities, while many small
> activities can lead to larger slowdowns.
Ahh. This wouldn't be for the life of 200M transactions; it would be a
permanent fork, just like the VM is.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
