Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Why not? The intermediate state *is valid*. We just haven't
> >> removed no-longer-referenced index and TOAST entries yet.
>
> > Do you mean *already committed* state has no problem and
> > VACUUM is always p
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why not? The intermediate state *is valid*. We just haven't
>> removed no-longer-referenced index and TOAST entries yet.
> Do you mean *already committed* state has no problem and
> VACUUM is always possible in the state ?
Yes.
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There's no command other than VACUUM which continues to
> > access table/index after *commit*. We couldn't process
> > significant procedures in such an already commiitted state,
> > could we ?
>
> Why not? The intermediate st
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's no command other than VACUUM which continues to
> access table/index after *commit*. We couldn't process
> significant procedures in such an already commiitted state,
> could we ?
Why not? The intermediate state *is valid*. We just haven't
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm,is there any good reason to vacuum toast table in the
> > transaction which was already internally committed by vacuum
> > of the master table ? Is it possible under W
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm,is there any good reason to vacuum toast table in the
> transaction which was already internally committed by vacuum
> of the master table ? Is it possible under WAL ?
It had better be possible under WAL, because vacuuming indexes is
done in ess
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Special handling of TOAST relations during VACUUM. TOAST relations
> >> are vacuumed while the lock on the master table is still active.
>
> > It seems very dangerous to m
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Special handling of TOAST relations during VACUUM. TOAST relations
>> are vacuumed while the lock on the master table is still active.
> It seems very dangerous to me.
> When VACUUM of a master table was finished, the transaction is
> in already comm
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Wieck
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 1:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)
>
>
> Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2000 @ 12:17:41
> Author: wieck
>
> Update of /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsq
