Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
Date
Msg-id 20230121011235.GA10739@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Inconsistency in vacuum behavior  (Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:18:08AM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> Is it intended? Why don't we perform vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation()
> check for inheritors in expand_vacuum_rel()?

Since no lock is held on the partition, the calls to functions like
object_ownercheck() and pg_class_aclcheck() in
vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() will produce cache lookup ERRORs if the
relation is concurrently dropped.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ted Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: libpqrcv_connect() leaks PGconn