Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I think we've had enough problems with the current design of forking a
> new autovac process every once in a while, that I'd like to have them as
> permanent processes instead, waiting for orders from the autovac
> launcher.  From that POV, bgworkers would make sense.

That seems like a fairly large can of worms to open: we have never tried
to make backends switch from one database to another, and I don't think
I'd want to start such a project with autovac.

			regards, tom lane