Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net> writes:
> Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes
> following some suggestions in this thread.

The more I look at this, the uglier it looks ... and I still haven't
seen any convincing demonstration that it *works*, ie doesn't have
bad side-effects on the transaction-is-in-progress logic.  I'm
particularly concerned about what happens to the RecentXmin horizon
for pg_subtrans and pg_multixact operations.

			regards, tom lane