Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > 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 ?
>
> 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 ?
Is VACUUM such a trivial job ?
> > What's wrong with vacuuming master and the toast table in
> > separate transactions ?
>
> You'd have to give up the lock on the master table if there were
> a true commit. I don't want to do that ... especially not when
> I don't believe there is a problem to fix.
>
Hmmm,is keeping the lock on master table more important than
risking to break consistency ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
