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
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) |
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? |