| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |
| Date: | 2003-09-11 22:50:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1063320635.13940.23.camel@zeutrh9 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 18:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I am not sure it is a good idea to suppress "redundant" vacuuming
> of shared tables in the first place. The trouble with doing so is that
> if you only vacuum pg_shadow through template1, then only template1 will
> ever have up-to-date statistics about it. That's not good.
>
> You might be able to get away with doing actual vacuums only through
> template1, and doing just ANALYZEs every so often in other DBs.
ok I will see what I can do about that. So I assume that the vacuumdb
script handle this just does redundant vacuums / analyzes on shared
tables so that it doesn't have a problem with this.
If we can supress "redundant" vacuuming I think that would be a good
thing as pg_autovacuum is supposed to make the required vacuuming as
efficient as possible.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 01:43:16 | Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-09-11 22:33:58 | Re: massive quotes? |