On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no > administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the > end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience. > If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application, > you're probably soon going to look for another database.
Maybe there could be some hooks (e.g., right after completing a statement) that see whether a vacuum or checkpoint is required? VACUUM can't be run in a transaction block, so there are some details to work out, but it might be a workable approach. Regards, Jeff Davis : It seems like the only reason for that is so a multi-table vacuum doesn't hold locks for longer than it needs to, but that's not much of a concern in this case. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers