> -----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:
> > 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 ?
> 
> It had better be possible under WAL, because vacuuming indexes is
> done in essentially the same way: we clean the indexes *after* we
> commit the master's tuple movements.
> 

There's no command other than VACUUM which continues to
access table/index after *commit*. We couldn't process
significant procedures in such an already commiitted state,
could we ? 

> Really, the TOAST table is being treated the same way we handle
> indexes, and I think that's good.
>

If I recognize correctly,TOAST table is a table not an index and
is little different from ordinary tables. VACUUM now vacuums
2 tables in a transaction for tables with TOAST columns.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think it's right and my question is simple.
What's wrong with vacuuming master and the toast table in
separate transactions ?

Regrads.
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-09 23:58:01 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c) at 2000-12-10 17:12:50 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: mwaples	Date: 2000-12-10 14:48:35
	Subject: plpgsql question
Previous:	From: Hannu Krosing	Date: 2000-12-10 12:25:46
	Subject: Re: OK, does anyone have any better ideas?

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-12-10 17:12:50
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-12-09 23:58:01
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)