Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/commands (command.c vacuum.c)

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