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?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
