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: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJOEBPDBAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
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 ?

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group