Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bossart, Nathan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id 370EC1B4-82EA-489E-B69E-694D3075ABA3@amazon.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9/7/17, 2:33 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using the patch checking for duplicate columns:
> =# create table aa (a int);
> CREATE TABLE
> =# vacuum ANALYZE aa(z, z);
> ERROR:  0A000: column lists cannot have duplicate entries
> HINT:  the column list specified for relation "aa" contains duplicates
> LOCATION:  check_column_lists, vacuum.c:619
> Shouldn't the priority be given to undefined columns instead of
> duplicates? You may want to add a test for that as well.

I agree.  I've fixed this and added a couple relevant tests cases in
v2.

I've also attached a v15 of the main patch.  In check_columns_exist(),
there was a 'return' that should be a 'continue'.  This caused us to
skip the column existence checks for column lists defined after a table
with no column list.

Nathan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager