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