Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-committers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group