Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why not? The intermediate state *is valid*. We just haven't
>> removed no-longer-referenced index and TOAST entries yet.
> Do you mean *already committed* state has no problem and
> VACUUM is always possible in the state ?
Yes. Otherwise VACUUM wouldn't be crash-safe.
> Hmmm,is keeping the lock on master table more important than
> risking to break consistency ?
I see no consistency risk here. I'd be more worried about potential
risks from dropping the lock too soon.
regards, tom lane
