| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |
| Date: | 2003-09-11 20:08:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1063310892.13940.7.camel@zeutrh9 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 08:12, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Something I am feeling a little suspicious of is that I haven't seen,
> in the logs, pg_autovacuum looking at pg_ tables.
>
> I know that if we don't periodically vacuum such system tables as
> pg_class, pg_attribute, pg_statistic, and pg_type, they can get to
> "pretty evil size."
>
> [Rummaging around...] These tables are being added for template1, but
> apparently not for "main" databases. That looks like a bit of a fly
> in the ointment...
I designed it that way. It was my understanding that all of the system
tables pg_class etc... are shared tables, available in all databases,
but actually stored as only one central set of real tables. Hence
vacuuming pg_class from template1 helps every database that accesses
pg_class.
Did I make a design error?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-11 20:09:10 | Re: massive quotes? |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-09-11 20:05:55 | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |