Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I believe the rationale was so that an autovacuum would still look like it > was needed, and get fired again the next naptime, so that it could continue > with the truncation attempts. (Rather than waiting for 20% turnover in the > table before trying again). I'm not convinced by this argument. If the > DBA is desperate to get the space back, they can go do vacuum full. Well, that's why I think the lock abandonment shouldn't apply to manual plain vacuum. You shouldn't need to do a vacuum full for that; that'd be a huge increase in the cost, not to mention that it'd transiently require twice the disk space, hardly a good thing if you're short. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
