> > Ops, sorry - this case is not relevant to 7.1: WAL guarantees that
> > both pages will be updated on restart. Seems we are safe now.
>
> First,already committed state isn't a normal state at least
> without WAL. We must have access to db as less as possible in the
> state without WAL.
> AFAIK there has been no proof that we are sufficently safe in the
> state under WAL. Don't you have to prove it if you dare to do another
> vacuum in the state ?
>
> Second,isn't the following an example that VACUUM isn't crash-safe.
>
> VACUUM of a toast table crashed immediately after the movement
> of a tuple(and before inserting corresponding index tuples).
> Unfortunately the movement of a tuple is directly committed in
> already committed state but corresponding index tuples aren't
> inserted.
Now you've won -:)
Vadim
