Re: vacuumlo issue

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I'm not entirely convinced that that was a good idea.  However, so far
> as vacuumlo is concerned, the only reason this is a problem is that
> vacuumlo goes out of its way to do all the large-object deletions in a
> single transaction.  What's the point of that?  It'd be useful to batch
> them, probably, rather than commit each deletion individually.  But the
> objects being deleted are by assumption unreferenced, so I see no
> correctness argument why they should need to go away all at once.

I think you are asking for this option:
 -l LIMIT     stop after removing LIMIT large objects

which was added in b69f2e36402aaa.

Josh