RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2000-12-09 23:25:24
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJOEBPDBAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> 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 committed state in many cases.
>
> I don't see the problem. If the toast table doesn't get vacuumed,
> no real harm is done other than failing to recover space.
>

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 ?

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message momjian 2000-12-09 23:25:53 pgsql/doc (TODO)
Previous Message momjian 2000-12-09 22:59:26 pgsql/doc/src/sgml (sql.sgml)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-12-09 23:46:23 Re: Re: CRC
Previous Message mlw 2000-12-09 22:30:46 Re: OK, does anyone have any better ideas?