Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 15:09
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Cc: Andreas Pflug; Magnus Hagander; Dave Page; Josh Berkus;
> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum
> in the backend)
>
> One argument against this is that it'd mean another copy of the system
> catalogs in a standard installation. That's been running
> three to five
> megabytes over the last few releases. Disk space is pretty
> cheap these
> days, but we do get occasional complaints from people who wish the
> footprint was smaller.

Yeah, but those people could easily drop it to save that space. They'd
have to offer an alternative default db for their users, but then I
guess they probably have pretty unusual requirements anyway so I doubt
that would add any pain.

Regards, Dave.