Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:04:45PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> 
> 
>>And if pg_autovacuum is running along with postmaster all the time, with 
>>aggressive polling like 5 sec, the database should not accumulate any dead 
>>tuples nor it would suffer xid wraparound as there are vacuum happening 
>>constantly.
> 
> 
> The database can suffer XID wraparound anyway if there's at least one
> table without updates, because the autovacuum daemon will never vacuum
> it (correct me if I'm wrong).
> 

If a table is never updated and hence not vacuumed at all, why would it be 
involved in a transaction that would have xid wrap around?

pg_autovacuum takes care of insert/updates/deletes. If a table never 
participates in above three and hence escape from pg_autovauum, it also escapes 
from xid wraparound, isn't it?

  Shridhar