Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum)

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.