Gregory Stark wrote:
> In that case the problem is dealing with different usage patterns on different
> tables. There might be a way to solve just that use case such as deferring WAL
> records for those tables. That doesn't guarantee inter-table data consistency
> if there were other queries which read from those tables and updated other
> tables based on that data though. Perhaps there's a solution for that too
> though.
There was a suggestion (Simon - from you?) of a transaction voluntarily
restricting itself to a set of tables. That would obviously reduce the
impact of all the options where the accessed tables weren't being
updated (where update = vacuum + HOT if I've got this straight).
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd