Re: pg_autovacuum next steps

On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 20:31, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > I think these configuration issues will become a lot easier if you make 
> > the autovacuum daemon a subprocess of the postmaster (like, say, the 
> > checkpoint process).  Then you have access to a host of methods for 
> > storing state, handling configuration, etc.
> 
> Yeah - why delay making it a backend process? :)

Ok, well this was part of the reason to have this conversation.

My reasons:
A) I wasn't sure if people really thought this was ready to be
integrated.  Tom had said a while ago, that it was a good to keep it as
a contrib module while it's still actively being developed.

B) Perhaps people like the idea of it being a client app (I don't think
so.)

C) Most importantly, I'm not backend hacker.  If someone wants to do the
initial work of getting it running as a backend process, I can take it
from there.  A while ago, Bruce offered to help me with any backend
issues I might have, so perhaps with a little help I can take a run at
it.

So the first question big question is: Do we want to make it a backend
subprocess now?

Secondly, are there any other features that people are interested in
that were not mentioned in my document?


Matthew O'Connor