> > 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

Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:07:35 -0800
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Is VACUUM still crash-safe?