Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jason Buberel <jason(at)altosresearch(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?
Date: 2011-11-17 15:59:10
Message-ID: 12591.1321545550@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> writes:
> On Nov 17, 2011 1:32 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If it's purely an insert-only table, such as a logging table, then in
>> principle you only need periodic ANALYZEs and not any VACUUMs.

> Won't a VACUUM FREEZE (or autovac equivalent) be necessary eventually, to
> handle xid wraparound?

Sure, but if he's continually adding new rows, I don't see much point in
launching extra freeze operations.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2011-11-17 16:07:32 Re: synchronous replication + fsync=off?
Previous Message Edson Richter 2011-11-17 15:08:45 Re: how could duplicate pkey exist in psql?