Re: Is VACUUM still crash-safe?

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>  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.

Ah, *now* I see what you're talking about.  You're right, the TOAST
table has to be vacuumed under a separate transaction number.

I still don't like releasing the lock on the master table though.
VACUUM cheats on the commit already, could it start a new transaction
number without releasing the lock?
        regards, tom lane