"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

• RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-09 23:25:24 from Hiroshi Inoue

Responses

• RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-10 13:48:12 from Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Guenter	Date: 2000-12-10 05:37:42
	Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-12-09 23:46:23
	Subject: Re: Re: CRC

pgsql-committers by date

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