Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Of course, there's no free lunch --- the price we pay for escaping > rollback-segment-overflow is table bloat if you don't vacuum often > enough. Well it's worse than that. If you have long-running transactions that would cause rollback-segment-overflow in Oracle then the equivalent price in Postgres would be table bloat *regardless* of how frequently you vacuum. I suppose you can argue it's not "bloat" as long as you reach a steady state. But the extra space in the tables is a performance cost on every sequential scan and on every cache miss it causes whatever you call it. I'm not saying I like rollback segments better, just yes, TANSTAAFL. -- greg
