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.