"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > OK, new patch posted to -patches that updates all the utilities as well.
Applied. One thing that neither Dave nor I wanted to touch is pg_autovacuum. If that gets integrated into the backend by feature freeze then the question is moot, but if it doesn't then we'll have to decide whether autovac should preferentially connect to template1 or postgres. Neither choice seems real appealing to me: if autovac connects to template1 then it could interfere with CREATE DATABASE, but if it connects to postgres then it could fail if postgres isn't there. Now the latter does not bother me if autovac is considered a client, but it does bother me if autovac is considered part of the backend. I think that template1 and template0 can reasonably be considered special from the point of view of the backend --- but I really don't want postgres to be special in that way. Another point is that Dave added code to pg_dumpall to not dump the postgres database. This seems mistaken to me, so I did not include it in the applied patch: if someone is doing real work in postgres then they'll be pretty annoyed if it's not backed up. But perhaps the question needs debate. Any thoughts? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org