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

Is VACUUM still crash-safe?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Is VACUUM still crash-safe?
Date: 2000-12-11 16:57:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> When VACUUM for a table starts, the transaction is not
> committed yet of cource. After *commit* VACUUM has handled
> heap/index tuples very carefully to be crash-safe before
> 7.1. Currently another vacuum could be invoked in the
> already committed transaction. There has been no such
> situation before 7.1. Yes,VACUUM isn't crash-safe now.
Vadim, do you agree with this argument?  If so, I think it's
something we need to fix.  I don't see what Hiroshi is worried
about, myself, but if there really is an issue here...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-12-11 17:08:33
Subject: Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-11 15:32:58
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] AW: Oracle-compatible lpad/rpad behavior

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: vadimDate: 2000-12-11 18:02:26
Subject: pgsql/src/backend/access/transam (xlog.c)
Previous:From: tglDate: 2000-12-11 16:45:17
Subject: pgsql/src/test/regress/expected (geometry-powerpc-darwin.out)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group