From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | culley <culley(at)easystreet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: implicit analyze on vacuum? |
Date: | 2001-11-25 02:17:55 |
Message-ID: | m3y9kvtwz0.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
culley <culley(at)easystreet(dot)com> writes:
> couple of questions about vacuum:
>
> If you run vacuum nightly does that mean you do not need to run vacuum
> analyze? is analyze implicit?
No. Running VACUUM ANALYZE will do everything needed, though (VACUUM
is implicit in VACUUM ANALYZE).
> I've set up a job to vacuum my databases nightly but the account
> running the job doesn't have super-user permissions and it blows up on
> all the pg_ tables. Is there any harm in transferring ownership of
> these tables away from a super-user?
It would be much better to run the VACUUM job as the PG superuser or
an account with superuser privs. I would think changing perms on pg_*
could lead to severe security holes.
-Doug
--
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
--T. J. Jackson, 1863
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-25 02:29:22 | Re: [off-topic] news.postgresql.org down? |
Previous Message | Randal L. Schwartz | 2001-11-25 01:24:10 | [off-topic] news.postgresql.org down? |