"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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-12-10 18:08:02|
|Subject: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux|
|Previous:||From: mwaples||Date: 2000-12-10 14:48:35|
|Subject: plpgsql question|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-12-10 20:03:01|
|Subject: Re: pgsql/src/include (config.h.in)|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2000-12-10 13:48:12|
|Subject: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) |