Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bharath Rupireddy
Subject Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date
Msg-id CALj2ACX4Enqp7EX2Y1Z2EETaiGzsFr+CRM1PX0+giiVK6pqt7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum  (surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
Hi,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the test front: once the race code path is gone, the injection point with the spec file isn't strictly needed
either.
> A simpler test that shows "VACUUM with a concurrent drop successfully completes without error" should suffice.
> Bharath's TAP test suggestion under src/test/modules/test_misc seems like a good fit now.

Thinking about this further, the test is NOT needed at all with this
approach because vacuum_open_relation() already protects against
concurrent drops. So, -1 for adding a new test.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: More jsonpath methods: translate, split, join
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Optimize UUID parse using SIMD