"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
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)|