Wes <wespvp@syntegra.com> 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
