Neil Conway wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> One issue I do have to deal with right now is how many autovacuum
>> processes do we want to be running. The current approach is to have one
>> autovacuum process. Two possible options would be to have one per
>> database, and one per tablespace. What do people think?
>
>
> Why do we need more than one pg_autovacuum process? (Note that this
> need not necessarily imply only one concurrent VACUUM, as you can use
> non-blocking connections in libpq.)
Part of the backend integration work Alvaro is doing is teaching
autovacuum to do it's work without libpq.