| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) |
| Date: | 2000-12-11 00:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1870.976493315@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> 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. Otherwise VACUUM wouldn't be crash-safe.
> Hmmm,is keeping the lock on master table more important than
> risking to break consistency ?
I see no consistency risk here. I'd be more worried about potential
risks from dropping the lock too soon.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tgl | 2000-12-11 00:39:45 | pgsql/src/backend/port/darwin (- New directory) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-12-11 00:00:03 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Myers | 2000-12-11 00:08:58 | Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-12-11 00:00:03 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) |