Wes <wespvp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
