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

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-11 00:00:03 from Hiroshi Inoue

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-11 03:08:25 from Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Nathan Myers	Date: 2000-12-11 00:08:58
	Subject: Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal
Previous:	From: Hiroshi Inoue	Date: 2000-12-11 00:00:03
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: tgl	Date: 2000-12-11 00:39:45
	Subject: pgsql/src/backend/port/darwin (- New directory)
Previous:	From: Hiroshi Inoue	Date: 2000-12-11 00:00:03
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)