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.