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