On 2014-04-28 14:05:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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?
Yea, I am not that sure about the feature either. It sure would need to be optional. Often enough VACUUMs are scripted to run during off hours, for those it possibly makes sense. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
