On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:26 pm, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> >
> >>Yeah --- a libpq-based solution is not what I think of as integrated at
> >>all, because it cannot do anything that couldn't be done by the existing
> >>external autovacuum process. About all you can buy there is having the
> >>postmaster spawn the autovacuum process, which is slightly more
> >>convenient to use but doesn't buy any real new functionality.
> >>
> >
> >
> > One reason of not using lib-pq is that this one has to wait for the
> > completion of each vacuum (we don't has async execution in libpq right?),
>
> There *is* async execution in libpq, and it works.
I would have thought the main reasons for not using libpq means you are locked
into only using commands that are available to all users via SQL. If you don't use
libpq, you open up the ability to use functions that can make use of information available
to the backend, and to also run functions in a way that it is not possible to do via SQL.
Regards
Russell Smith.
