On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
