Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 16 October 2014 15:09, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@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
