Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > /*
> > * We have to commit our tuple' movings before we'll truncate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > * relation, but we shouldn't lose our locks. And so - quick hack:
^^^^^^^^

... or moved tuples may be lost in the case of DB/OS crash etc
that may occur after truncation but before commit...

> > * flush buffers and record status of current transaction as
> > * committed, and continue. - vadim 11/13/96
> > */
> > FlushBufferPool(!TransactionFlushEnabled());
> > TransactionIdCommit(myXID);
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > FlushBufferPool(!TransactionFlushEnabled());
> > }
> >
> > vc_updstats() may be called in the already committed transaction.
>
> Oh, that is tricky that they have committed the transaction and continue
> working in an already committed. Yikes. Any idea why we have to commit
> it early?

Vadim