On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Christopher
Browne<cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
> Tory M Blue <tmblue at gmail.com> writes:
>> So I've noticed recently that I'm vacuuming the sl_?.log files with
>> postgres and this doesn't appear right. The fact is slon has it's own
>> process for dealing with this and I believe it's a clean truncate.
>
> I would actually counsel taking the opposite approach, that it may be
> preferable for autovacuum to handle vacuuming the Slony-I tables than
> for Slony-I to do it itself.
>
> Autovacuum should have a better capability to cope with the dual factors
> of:
>  a) Needing to vacuum some tables "even more often", as well as
>  b) Needing to not vacuum some tables very often.
>
> In principle, we could make the cleanup thread in Slony-I smarter, but
> that would duplicate the good work that has gone into the PostgreSQL
> built-in...

Ahh good info, although I would think that a postgres vacuum, using
delete's would be worse than a slon truncate of said table once
everything was replicated?

I have major index bloat and looking for anything and everything that
could help with it.

Thanks for the insight

Tory