Re: Autovacuum in the backend

Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 
>>Yeah --- a libpq-based solution is not what I think of as integrated at
>>all, because it cannot do anything that couldn't be done by the existing
>>external autovacuum process.  About all you can buy there is having the
>>postmaster spawn the autovacuum process, which is slightly more
>>convenient to use but doesn't buy any real new functionality.
>>
> 
> 
> One reason of not using lib-pq is that this one has to wait for the
> completion of each vacuum (we don't has async execution in libpq right?),

There *is* async execution in libpq, and it works.

Regards,
Andreas