Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > An alternative solution would be to lower the vacuum delay settings before > starting the truncating phase, but this doesn't work very well in autovacuum > due to the autobalancing code (which can cause other processes to change our > cost delay settings). This case could be considered in the balancing code, but > it is simpler this way. I don't think autovacuum has a problem --- if someone requests a conflicting lock, autovac will get kicked off, no? The OP's problem comes from doing a manual vacuum. Perhaps "don't do that" is a good enough answer. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
