rehashing catalog cache id 14 for pg_opclass; 17 tups, 8 buckets

[Thiemo Kellner]

Hi all

When running following query in psql (server and client version 10 with 
replication on Debian 9), I get the message mentioned in the subject. I 
have not found much searching the internet. There were suggestions on 
bloat so I ran "vacuum (verbose, full, analyze)" but the message remains.

with PRO_UNNESTED_TYPES as(
  select
    oid as PROOID,
    PRONAME,
    unnest(PROARGTYPES) as PROARGTYPE,
    PRONAMESPACE,
    PROOWNER
  from
    PG_CATALOG.PG_PROC
) select
  P.PRONAME,
  string_agg(
    T.TYPNAME,
    ', '
  ) as PARAMETER_LIST_STRING,
  G.GRANTEE
from
  PRO_UNNESTED_TYPES P
inner join PG_CATALOG.PG_TYPE T on
  P.PROARGTYPE = T.OID
inner join PG_CATALOG.PG_NAMESPACE N on
  P.PRONAMESPACE = N.OID
inner join INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINE_PRIVILEGES G on
  -- copied from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINE_PRIVILEGES source
 -- as seen in DBeaver 4.3.2
(
    (
      P.PRONAME::text || '_'::text
    )|| P.PROOID::text
  )::INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SQL_IDENTIFIER = G.SPECIFIC_NAME
where
  N.NSPNAME = current_user
  and G.GRANTEE != current_user
group by
  P.PROOID,
  P.PRONAME,
  G.GRANTEE
order by
  P.PRONAME asc,
  G.GRANTEE asc,
  PARAMETER_LIST_STRING asc;

I use this installation to develop and for the time being I install and 
re-install a couple of functions only 3 tables an a single view. I 
install in a proper schema which gets re-created at the beginning of my 
install script.

I ran also following statement I found on the net to get an idea on 
bloat in my database.

pg_depend_reference_index       944 kB
pg_proc 904 kB
pg_depend_depender_index        880 kB
pg_largeobject_metadata_oid_index       8192 bytes
pg_enum_typid_sortorder_index   8192 bytes
pg_enum_typid_label_index       8192 bytes
pg_largeobject_loid_pn_index    8192 bytes
pg_enum_oid_index       8192 bytes
pg_statistic_ext_oid_index      8192 bytes
pg_statistic_ext_name_index     8192 bytes

I am quite ok with pg_proc, however I do not know why the depend tables 
are so big and whether this is normal. The rest is fine by me too.

select
  relname,
  pg_size_pretty(
    pg_relation_size(C.oid)
  )
from
  pg_class C
left join pg_namespace N on
  (
    N.oid = C.relnamespace
  )
where
  nspname = 'pg_catalog'
order by
  2 desc limit 10;

I do not feel that my DB has a problem but I was taken aback a bit when 
I first saw the message in the subject.

I would be grateful about a bit shed light.

Kind regards Thiemo

--
Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCA167FB0E717AFFC
<<attachment: thiemo.vcf>>