ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
> It isn't clear to me why you think you need to do this: vacuum
> doesn't block your queries anyway. If the idea is that you have a
> table that you'd rather TRUNCATE and not have to vacuum, however,
> that makes sense. There are several strategies for this. My
> colleague Chris Browne seems really to like this kind of
> functionality, and has discussed it more than once on the -general
> list. I think you can find his detailed outlines of how to do this
> sort of thing by searching for "rotor tables".
I'd suggest looking at the section in the documentation on
Partitioning; the mechanisms there look like the Better Way these
days.
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/ddl-partitioning.html>
There were some things that were Pretty Neat about rotor tables; as of
8.1, the benefits gotten from constraint propagation with partitioning
seems to make that a much more attractive way to go about things.
There are always going to be some caveats for whatever mechanism is
used to partition data; it looks like 8.1's constraint propagation
pushes preference towards using inheritance...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
"It is easier to optimize correct code, than correct optimized code"
-- Yves Deville
