Subject: Re: Record last SELECT on a row?
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
References: <287E4DF6-35A2-4062-AEBA-32DB1DE35C5D@leisi.net>
 <CANzqJaAAxnwa+KMiPDJsm=z=1g8HTskE2B2B-ZPG3SJ+=A4+=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <E680D170-8CDB-47B6-9354-2DF8FF7CB1ED@leisi.net>
 <91687275-3826-49fc-b705-70ab2b6e0bcf@joeconway.com>
 <2654835.1765996654@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <4edde38e-8d0d-4b66-993d-e38dca3bf2cb@joeconway.com>
 <AA7E2EBE-9D0A-4D06-98B0-C8F6FBBF577F@leisi.net>
From: Kris Deugau <kdeugau@vianet.ca>
Organization: Vianet Internet Solutions
Message-ID: <e368b881-5c7f-0704-0a4e-d9118c221acf@vianet.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:03:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 SeaMonkey/2.53.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AA7E2EBE-9D0A-4D06-98B0-C8F6FBBF577F@leisi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e368b881-5c7f-0704-0a4e-d9118c221acf%40vianet.ca>
Precedence: bulk

Matthias Leisi wrote:
> 
>>> If the application's behavior is simple and well-defined, this might
>>> be good enough, of course.
>>
>>
>> FWIW when I read the original email in the thread I got the impression 
>> that the application behavior was pretty simple WRT this table. But of 
>> course I could easily be wrong...
> 
> You are not wrong. The use case is in fact the `userpref` table used by 
> Spamassassin. Left unmaintained, and given a large-enough user base, 
> this has the tendency to grow considerably over time, so we want to 
> gradually remove entries not actually used any more. (And we don’t want 
> to patch Spamassassin core code to do this by itself…)

For this particular use case, would it be easier to periodically compare 
the list of usernames with userpref data against active accounts on the 
mail system?

-kgd