Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums?

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.