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?
This becomes a more crucial issue now since the introduction of vacuum_delay
makes overlapping vacuums more probable.
--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco