Re: Autovacuum integration patch

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, you're wrong.  VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good
>> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to
>> track whether it had been done at the database level.  If we tracked it
>> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect
>> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs.

> Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this.  This will be another nice advantage
> of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do.  Any thoughts on
> this being a change we can get in for 8.1?

I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of
code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and
we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code.

            regards, tom lane