[HACKERS] RE: Is VACUUM still crash-safe?

[Mikheev, Vadim]

> > Ops, sorry - this case is not relevant to 7.1: WAL guarantees that > > both pages will be updated on restart. Seems we are safe now. > > First,already committed state isn't a normal state at least > without WAL. We must have access to db as less as possible in the > state without WAL. > AFAIK there has been no proof that we are sufficently safe in the > state under WAL. Don't you have to prove it if you dare to do another > vacuum in the state ? > > Second,isn't the following an example that VACUUM isn't crash-safe. > > VACUUM of a toast table crashed immediately after the movement > of a tuple(and before inserting corresponding index tuples). > Unfortunately the movement of a tuple is directly committed in > already committed state but corresponding index tuples aren't > inserted. Now you've won -:) Vadim