Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I realize this isn't directly addressing the problem but perhaps part of the
> solution would be to start advocating the use of pg_restore -1 ? That would
> solve the problem for the narrow case of pg_restore.
Well, that would do as a quick workaround, as would disabling autovacuum
during the restore.
> In the long run we could think about exposing some kind of command for
> pg_restore to use which would disable autovacuum from touching a
> table.
Ugh. I think a real solution probably involves a mechanism that kicks
autovacuum off a table when someone else wants an exclusive lock on it.
This is a little bit worrisome because a steady stream of lock requests
could prevent autovac from ever finishing the table, but it seems clear
that not doing this is going to make autovac a lot more intrusive than
people will stand for.
regards, tom lane