Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum)

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Only the tables marked "relisshared" in pg_class (currently pg_shadow,
>> pg_group, pg_database, and their indexes and toast tables) are shared
>> across a cluster.  The rest have separate copies per-database.

> hrm.... OK.  Patch forthcoming....

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.
        regards, tom lane