Re: autovacuum process handling

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This is how I think autovacuum should change with an eye towards being
> able to run multiple vacuums simultaneously:
>
[snip details]
>
> Does this raise some red flags? It seems straightforward enough to me;
> I'll submit a patch implementing this, so that scheduling will continue
> to be as it is today. Thus the scheduling discussions are being
> deferred until they can be actually useful and implementable.

I can't really speak to the PostgreSQL signaling innards, but this sound
logical to me. I think having the worker processes be children of the
postmaster and having them be single-minded (or single-tasked) also
makes a lot of sense.