Tom Lane wrote:
>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.
>
I'm still hoping that autovac will get integrated so this will be moot,
but just in case.....
Perhaps pg_autovacuum should try to connect to the postgres database and
if the connection fails, then it will try to connect to template1. This
way autovacuum will work whether the postgres database is there or not.
