Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Why not?  The intermediate state *is valid*.  We just haven't
> >> removed no-longer-referenced index and TOAST entries yet.
> 
> > Do you mean *already committed* state has no problem and
> > VACUUM is always possible in the state ?
> 
> Yes.  Otherwise VACUUM wouldn't be crash-safe.
>

When VACUUM for a table starts, the transaction is not
committed yet of cource. After *commit* VACUUM has handled
heap/index tuples very carefully to be crash-safe before
7.1. Currently another vacuum could be invoked in the
already committed transaction. There has been no such
situation before 7.1. Yes,VACUUM isn't crash-safe now.
 
> > Hmmm,is keeping the lock on master table more important than
> > risking to break consistency ?
> 
> I see no consistency risk here.  I'd be more worried about potential
> risks from dropping the lock too soon.
> 

Thers's no potential risk other than deadlock.
If we have to avoid deadlock we could acquire
the lock on master table first. Is there any 
problem ?

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-11 00:08:35 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Is VACUUM still crash-safe? at 2000-12-11 16:57:49 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tim Perdue	Date: 2000-12-11 05:26:35
	Subject: SourceForge & Postgres
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2000-12-11 02:06:46
	Subject: Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: ishii	Date: 2000-12-11 05:00:19
	Subject: pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt (like.c)
Previous:	From: momjian	Date: 2000-12-11 01:44:37
	Subject: pgsql/doc (TODO)