Re: Name for new VACUUM

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I was thinking about our new version of vacuum.  I think it should be
> called VACUUM NOLOCK to make it clear when you should use it, and we can
> keep our ordinary VACUUM the same.

I really don't understand why you're so hot to avoid changing the
default behavior of VACUUM.  Name me even one user who *likes* the
current behavior (ie, VACUUM grabs exclusive lock)?  IMHO the default
behavior *should* change.  Otherwise you're just forcing people to
update their cron scripts, which they wouldn't need to touch if we
do it the way I want.
        regards, tom lane