On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm not entirely convinced that that was a good idea. However, so far
> as vacuumlo is concerned, the only reason this is a problem is that
> vacuumlo goes out of its way to do all the large-object deletions in a
> single transaction. What's the point of that? It'd be useful to batch
> them, probably, rather than commit each deletion individually. But the
> objects being deleted are by assumption unreferenced, so I see no
> correctness argument why they should need to go away all at once.
I think you are asking for this option:
-l LIMIT stop after removing LIMIT large objects
which was added in b69f2e36402aaa.
Josh
