From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |
Date: | 2003-09-12 19:18:02 |
Message-ID: | 60k78dstn9.fsf@dev6.int.libertyrms.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
matthew(at)zeut(dot)net ("Matthew T. O'Connor") writes:
> So we would have a problem if commands that effect these tables are done
> from lots of different databases. In reality, I don't think these
> tables change that much (pg_database, pg_shadow, and pg_group), and most
> of commands that do effect these tables are usually done from template1.
I wouldn't necessarily assume the latter ("usually done from
template1"), but these surely seem to be candidates for being fairly
infrequent.
And if they _were_ being touched frequently, would they not trigger
vacuums in the databse that they were being touched in?
In any case, if there are three tables that pg_autovacuum never
touches that _normally_ are pretty quiet, this does not appear to be a
grand disaster.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "libertyrms.info")
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-12 19:20:48 | Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 18:14:38 | Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines |