On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the > deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a > autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting > lock.
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled by a manual DDL action elsewhere. Who's to say which of those things should have priority?
The proposal was to add either a GUC, or a syntax to the vacuum command, so it would be either DBA or the invoker of the vacuum which is the one to say. Either one does seem a reasonable place to have such a say, although perhaps not worth the effort to implement.
