Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jan Wieck" <wieck(at)hub(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)
Date: 2000-12-09 23:25:24
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Special handling of TOAST relations during VACUUM. TOAST relations
> >> are vacuumed while the lock on the master table is still active.
> > It seems very dangerous to me.
> > When VACUUM of a master table was finished, the transaction is
> > in already committed state in many cases. 
> I don't see the problem.  If the toast table doesn't get vacuumed,
> no real harm is done other than failing to recover space.

Hmm,is there any good reason to vacuum toast table in the 
transaction which was already internally committed by vacuum
of the master table ?  Is it possible under WAL ?

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-09 23:46:23
Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Previous:From: mlwDate: 2000-12-09 22:30:46
Subject: Re: OK, does anyone have any better ideas?

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: momjianDate: 2000-12-09 23:25:53
Subject: pgsql/doc (TODO)
Previous:From: momjianDate: 2000-12-09 22:59:26
Subject: pgsql/doc/src/sgml (sql.sgml)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group