Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no
> administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the
> end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience.
> If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application,
> you're probably soon going to look for another database.

Maybe there could be some hooks (e.g., right after completing a
statement) that see whether a vacuum or checkpoint is required? VACUUM
can't be run in a transaction block[1], so there are some details to
work out, but it might be a workable approach.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

[1]: It seems like the only reason for that is so a multi-table vacuum
doesn't hold locks for longer than it needs to, but that's not much of a
concern in this case.