| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Is VACUUM still crash-safe? |
| Date: | 2000-12-11 16:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 7559.976553869@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:
> 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.
Vadim, do you agree with this argument? If so, I think it's
something we need to fix. I don't see what Hiroshi is worried
about, myself, but if there really is an issue here...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vadim | 2000-12-11 18:02:26 | pgsql/src/backend/access/transam (xlog.c) |
| Previous Message | tgl | 2000-12-11 16:45:17 | pgsql/src/test/regress/expected (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-12-11 17:08:33 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-11 15:32:58 | Re: [HACKERS] AW: Oracle-compatible lpad/rpad behavior |