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

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-11 03:08:25 from Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2000-12-11 17:08:33
	Subject: Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ...
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-12-11 15:32:58
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] AW: Oracle-compatible lpad/rpad behavior

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: vadim	Date: 2000-12-11 18:02:26
	Subject: pgsql/src/backend/access/transam (xlog.c)
Previous:	From: tgl	Date: 2000-12-11 16:45:17
	Subject: pgsql/src/test/regress/expected (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out)