Re: [HACKERS] More initdb follies

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More initdb follies
Date: 1999-12-09 02:54:16
Message-ID: 199912090254.VAA03027@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Question 3: Is there a reason why the template1 database is vacuumed twice
> in the process? Once before all the views are created (no analyze) and
> once at the very end (with analyze).

Yes, there is a reason, though I can't remember why. We need the
analyze at the end so the system tables are completely optimized, but we
need the earlier vacuum to set some table statistics that don't get set
by the raw load used by initdb. You can try removing the first one to
see if it works.

Seems it works without the first initdb here. I will apply a patch to
remove the first initdb. I think we needed it long ago for some reason.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-12-09 02:55:35 Re: [HACKERS] More initdb follies
Previous Message Lamar Owen 1999-12-09 02:45:19 Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql 6.5.3-2 for redhat 6.1