Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 16:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd make more sense to put the effort into developing
>> better scheduling control over autovacuum, such as a concept of
>> maintenance windows.

> We need that as well, not instead of.

I disagree; adding every frammish anyone could ever think of is not
an overall improvement to the system.

My feeling is that we should be trying to eliminate use-cases for
cron-driven vacuuming, not trying to make sure that cron-driven
scripts can do anything autovacuum can.

The main remaining use-case seems to me to make vacuuming work adhere
to some business-determined schedule, hence maintenance windows seem
like the next thing to do.
        regards, tom lane