Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging > and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the > existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are > readily available and people know when to use them. On this topic, I think we're getting back to the idea of having non-core daemon helpers that should get "supervised" the way postmaster already does with backends wrt starting and stoping them at the right time. So a supervisor daemon with a supervisor API that would have to support autovacuum as a use case, then things like pgagent, PGQ and pgbouncer, would be very welcome. What about starting a new thread about that? Or you already know you won't want to push the extensibility of PostgreSQL there? Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
