Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TBFjJ-0000Vr-IC for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:57:33 +0000 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TBFjH-0005n1-8k for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:57:32 +0000 Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so1762128dad.19 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BVxV4DiuP8mvi/iYbCESVvnsk2MlLsYMqaYE2gi4hvM=; b=oAxpBE+V8o4h26bdN4Xy35fuMgkyKsQLYySIitTYl2qKfzHKN/bD7uGVI8IITbgE7u 2akdDvCONcujU3sw50C+mCZaIXtMcuxu+7lvh815rQedvXzH5jEhmVpZwxwoCIeiB3Es PYqvJcsfqfSqBVFEB2U8cBpiC2K1FHOgQfw34ImWHRdLkZBjML3XFYwn5jYvyONSVeAg TYPQPJgnejpEeqUQzCi4pZxzE7dfWAKDe9KS92ozku7O6DbhcA5Zehtz490nd/44GI0L ByzHJ4Qb4LkGMAER6aq0Av0PGmSEvWk0SGgSzHBMIjRMr05ClfibnabNpYzz0m5nDz77 t3xg== Received: by 10.66.77.40 with SMTP id p8mr24360963paw.78.1347328649112; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.8] ([116.226.32.153]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hr9sm8992905pbc.36.2012.09.10.18.57.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504E9A82.6070504@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:57:22 +0800 From: Rural Hunter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Large historical tables and autovacuum References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201209/39 X-Sequence-Number: 39980 turn auto vacuum off for those tables. 于 2012/9/11 4:30, David Morton 写道: > We have many large tables which contain static historical data, they > are auto vacuumed on a regular basis (sometimes to prevent wraparound) > which i suspect causes a few annoying side effects: > - Additional WAL file generation > - Increased 'changed' data as far as our online rsync based backups > are concerned > > Is there any way to tell Postgres that these tables are now not > available for changes so we can avoid these seemingly pointless > maintenance tasks ? > > Dave