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: 2000-12-09 23:58:01
Message-ID: 20901.976406281@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> 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 ?

It had better be possible under WAL, because vacuuming indexes is
done in essentially the same way: we clean the indexes *after* we
commit the master's tuple movements.

Really, the TOAST table is being treated the same way we handle
indexes, and I think that's good.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce GuenterDate: 2000-12-10 05:37:42
Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-09 23:46:23
Subject: Re: Re: CRC

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-12-10 13:48:12
Subject: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)
Previous:From: momjianDate: 2000-12-09 23:25:53
Subject: pgsql/doc (TODO)

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