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 34A7FD1CCA8 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:52:46 +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 08970-05 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:52:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server228.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7D5D1C9FB for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:52:42 -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 4378151; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:53:48 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Tom Lane Subject: Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums? Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:51:49 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org References: <200402051237.14615.josh@agliodbs.com> <11820.1076015269@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <11820.1076015269@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402051351.49983.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/215 X-Sequence-Number: 49804 Tom, > Yes we do: there's a lock. Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything. Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking. However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with me. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco