On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:37, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > Just occurred to me that we have no code to prevent a user from running two > simultaneos lazy vacuums on the same table. I can't think of any > circumstance why running two vacuums would be desirable behavior; how > difficult would it be to make this an exception?
You have a 8 billion row table with some very high turn over tuples (lots of updates to a few thousand rows). A partial or targeted vacuum would be best, failing that you kick them off fairly frequently, especially if IO isn't really an issue. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
