Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the
> deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a
> autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting
> lock.
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled
by a manual DDL action elsewhere. Who's to say which of those things
should have priority?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
