Re: Re: [JDBC] unlink large objects

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> writes:
> > > I was vacuuming, but as the owner of the database. When I do that there
> > > are messages that should have clued me in, lke
> > > NOTICE: Skipping "pg_largeobject" --- only table owner can VACUUM it
> >
> > > From now on I will vacuum as user postgres, but I wonder if there is a
> > > need for individual users to be able to vacuum large obects by themselves.
> >
> > Good point. More generally, it seems like it might be a good idea to
> > allow the owner of an individual database to vacuum all the system
> > catalogs in it, even if he's not the superuser. Comments anyone?
>
> Seems db owner should be able to do whatever they want to the non-global
> system tables.

I would suppose that this has already been thought of, but it would be
really nice, IMHO, if the "vacuuming" could be done continuously by a low
priority backend thread, like garbabge collection in java. Easier said
then done I am sure, but this would mean that it could be done by the
backend without having to worry about ownership of system tables.

On a similar idea, has there been any thought to allowing regular backend
processess to run at lower priority? Either by adopting the callers
priority if it is local, or by having some way to set a priority. I have
some db cleanup tasks that I would like to run as low level background
tasks, but the backend does all the work at the default top priority.

Just some thoughts,
thanks,
Philip