| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is VACUUM still crash-safe? |
| Date: | 2000-12-12 01:46:46 |
| Message-ID: | 14385.976585606@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> 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.
Ah, *now* I see what you're talking about. You're right, the TOAST
table has to be vacuumed under a separate transaction number.
I still don't like releasing the lock on the master table though.
VACUUM cheats on the commit already, could it start a new transaction
number without releasing the lock?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-12 02:01:47 | Re: (one more time) Patches with vacuum fixes available . |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-12-12 01:37:17 | Re: (one more time) Patches with vacuum fixes available . |