Re: Missing CONCURRENT VACUUM (Was: Release notes for

On E, 2005-08-22 at 00:36 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That
> > makes the patch far more invasive, and I'm not confident I can work
> > out all the implications. (In particular, the consequences for
> > TransactionIdIsInProgress look bad. I don't think we want a VACUUM
> > to be seen as not-in-progress.)
>
> The way the attached patch does it should hopefully not have these
> implications.
>
> > So I'm bouncing this patch again...
>
> Please check the attached patch and apply if possible.
>
> I also think this is a good time for this change as some people are
> already doing extensive concurrent vacuum testing due to the t_ctid
> chain fix, so this one would get all the testing for free.
>
> This patch is against CVS checkout only a few hours old.

Alas, I just noticed that it still runs *both* full_vacuum_rel and
lazy_vacuum_rel due to missing {}.

And probably misses vac_truncate_clog use of inVacuum (have to check
that).

Sorry for confusion.

--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>