On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 03:35, Pavel Stehule
> <pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>> escreveu:
>
> here is a patch (with small regress test)
>
>
> An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
> Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running
> instead of
> function, procedure or anonymous block ?
Maybe out of some kind of correctness, but it seems less useful to me
since the obvious question an end user would ask after trying to run
VACUUM in a function is if they can do so in a procedure instead so we
may as well tell them right away.
A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a
HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any
transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.
Andreas
