On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder though if it wouldn't be smarter
> to insist that autovacuum acquire some lock on the main table
> when processing a toast table.
Boy, it sure seems better to avoid the above if we can. So +1 for the other way
around - make CLUSTER lock t
I thought some more about the bug #5998 business, and I believe there's
still a risk unaddressed by yesterday's patch. Suppose that we begin
a CLUSTER operation on some table, and then while it's running (perhaps
in the sort stage) autovacuum decides to vacuum the table's TOAST table.
The autovacu
