The world rejoiced as hannu@tm.ee (Hannu Krosing) wrote:
> Christopher Browne kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 02:15:
>> Well, actually, the case where it _would_ be troublesome would be
>> where there was a combination of huge tables needing vacuuming and
>> smaller ones that are _heavily_ updated (e.g. - account balances),
>> where pg_autovacuum might take so long on some big tables that it
>> wouldn't get to the smaller ones often enough.
>
> Can't one just run a _separate_ VACUUM on those smaller tables ?
Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having a daemon that tries to
manage this all for you.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html
"...once can imagine the government's problem. This is all pretty
magical stuff to them. If I were trying to terminate the operations
of a witch coven, I'd probably seize everything in sight. How would I
tell the ordinary household brooms from the getaway vehicles?"
-- John Perry Barlow
