Re: pg_autovacuum next steps

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 10:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lots of idle processes sitting around is right out, too.  Remember that
> each one would eat a backend connection slot.  I think we are going to
> have to limit this to *one* process at a time.  What that probably means
> is that we successively launch an autovacuum process against each
> database, it does whatever seems appropriate in that database and then
> quits.  We could manage this just like checkpoints are presently managed
> --- the only thing the postmaster has to know is the desired idle period
> between end of one autovacuum and start of the next.

Ok, I was thinking a similar thing (see my response to Gavin).  So we
could have autovacuum fired off by the postmaster and it will connect to
databases as needed in a serial fashion. 

Matthew