Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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; > else > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
