Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DB5632D57 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:35:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51215-05 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:35:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6661632D13 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:35:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from alvh.no-ip.org ([164.77.102.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n15If8EZ010195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:41:11 -0800 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E0B1443806F; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:27:37 -0300 (CLST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:27:37 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Harald Fuchs Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: autovacuum question Message-ID: <20090205182737.GD2978@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <20090204165933.GB32680@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:41:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200902/45 X-Sequence-Number: 31266 Harald Fuchs escribió: > In article <20090204165933.GB32680@alvh.no-ip.org>, > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > Marc Mamin wrote: > >> There are 2 features that would be helpfull in my case: > >> > >> - define vacuum properties on table groups rather than on given tables: > > Hmm. I'm not really sure how could we handle this kind of situation. > > Couldn't we use schemas for that? Put all those tables into a > separate schema and somehow tell autovacuum to leave that schema > alone. I don't like that. It would force the users to use schemas in a certain way, taking flexibility away from them. In an old design for autovacuum "maintenance windows" (which were promised for 8.2 and still haven't seen the light of day) we were introducing "table groups" as a concept. Sounds like something that applies here too. If you can attach a table to a group during creation, you can decide its autovacuum schedule right there. You should be able to do something like create table d_123 ( ... ) WITH (autovacuum_group = 'dont_ever_vacuum'); which means autovacuum automatically ignores that table. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support