On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > 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.
If it was me, I'd want finer grained control of if/when automatic background optimization work happened. Something like DoBackgroundWork(int forThisManySeconds). Of course, for that to work, we'd need to have resumable vacuum. I like the idea of keeping everything single threaded. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers