"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
