Re: Excessive vacuum times

Wes <wespvp@syntegra.com> writes:
> The problem was determined to be due to the fact that indexes are vacuumed
> in index order, not in disk storage order.  I don't see anything about this
> in the "What's new" for 8.1.  Has anything been done to resolve this?

No.  Avoiding that would require a new approach to
vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until
someone has a Bright Idea (tm).

            regards, tom lane