>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:35 AM, in message <13267(dot)1197563721(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> ... although to a naive user it's not clear what
>> is known at vacuum time that the INSERT into the empty table
>> couldn't have inferred.
>
> The fact that the INSERT actually committed.
Fair enough. I suppose that the possibility that of access before
the commit would preclude any optimization that would assume the
commit is more likely than a rollback, and do the extra work only in
the unusual case?
-Kevin