Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> > template0 as any other database. We've changed autovac's behavior on
> > this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> > du jour.
> AFAICS, the only way in which current autovac treats !datallowconn
> databases specially is this test in do_autovacuum:
> if (dbForm->datistemplate || !dbForm->datallowconn)
> default_freeze_min_age = 0;
> default_freeze_min_age = vacuum_freeze_min_age;
> Perhaps there's something wrong with the idea of setting freeze_min_age
> to zero?
Nope, AFAICS it's harmless; what it means is that on those databases,
all tuples will be frozen immediately.
I'll try to reproduce the problem here.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-08-26 17:33:49|
|Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-08-26 17:31:29|
|Subject: Re: Split up the wiki TODO page? |