Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On 16 October 2014 15:09, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > c) seems like the only issue that needs any thought. I don't think its > > going to be that hard. > > > > I don't see any problems with the other points. You can make a > > function wait, if you wish. > > It is quite possible, but still I think to accomplish such a function, > we need to have some mechanism where it can inform auto vacuum > and then some changes in auto vacuum to receive/read that information > and reply back. I don't think any such mechanism exists. You're right, it doesn't. I think we have plenty more infrastructure for that than we had when autovacuum was initially developed. It shouldn't be that hard. Of course, this is a task that requires much more thinking, design, and discussion than just adding multi-process capability to vacuumdb ... -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
