Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that this patch allows a toast table to be vacuumed by the user: > I don't have a problem with that, but if anyone thinks this is not a > good idea, please speak up.
The permissions on pg_toast will prevent anyone but a superuser from doing that anyway, so it's no big deal. Possibly more interesting is what happens if someone drops the parent table while VACUUM is working independently on the toast table. Does DROP take exclusive lock on a toast table? Probably, but it needs to be checked. I think preventing that scenario was one reason why the vacuuming was tied together way back when. (The same goes for any other parent-table DDL action that would affect the toast table; CLUSTER or TRUNCATE for instance.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers