"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

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

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-11 00:00:03 from Hiroshi Inoue

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)