On 12/12/05 5:26 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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).
Any ideas on how I might I reconfigure to mitigate the issue? Separating
the most offending indexes to separate drives probably isn't an option.
Wes