Greg Stark wrote:
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.
Isn't that a bit pessimistic? In tables which mostly grow (as opposed to deletes and updates) and where most inserts succeed (instead of rolling back), I would have expected postgresql not to bloat tables no matter how long my transactions last. And it's been a while; but I thought transactions like that could overflow rollback segments in that other database.
