X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE86BD1C9FB for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:38:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77308-05 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:38:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server228.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B57BD1D3E8 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:38:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO 192.168.1.29) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 4377723 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 12:39:17 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Preventing duplicate vacuums? Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:37:14 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402051237.14615.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/204 X-Sequence-Number: 49793 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 Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco