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: 2000-12-10 17:12:50
Message-ID: 28592.976468370@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> There's no command other than VACUUM which continues to
> access table/index after *commit*. We couldn't process
> significant procedures in such an already commiitted state,
> could we ? 

Why not?  The intermediate state *is valid*.  We just haven't
removed no-longer-referenced index and TOAST entries yet.

> What's wrong with vacuuming master and the toast table in
> separate transactions ?

You'd have to give up the lock on the master table if there were
a true commit.  I don't want to do that ... especially not when
I don't believe there is a problem to fix.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-10 18:08:02
Subject: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux
Previous:From: mwaplesDate: 2000-12-10 14:48:35
Subject: plpgsql question

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-12-10 20:03:01
Subject: Re: pgsql/src/include (config.h.in)
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-12-10 13:48:12
Subject: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)

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