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

From Nikita Malakhov
Subject Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
Date
Msg-id CAN-LCVOFd=1Nv3cTq9-uL=+GMpmLxTCvbbV=x4CRdRJNSKL=4Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi!

Yes, I've checked that. What would be desirable behavior in the case above?
Anyway, waiting for table unlock seems to be not quite right.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 4:12 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
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




--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on
Next
From: Dimos Stamatakis
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade from PG-14.5 to PG-15.1 failing due to non-existing function