Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date
Msg-id akG4r-_eRtZ5pMGe@paquier.xyz
Whole thread
In response to Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:32:42PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I would have considered adding an
> Assert(CheckRelationOidLockedByMe(relid, AccessShareLock, true))
> instead of the note, but that seems like overkill to me. So, I'm fine
> without it.

An assertion is impossible to miss, acts as self-documentation and it
is not a performance critical path.  A note at the top of the function
could be easily missed.  I don't see why the note needs to mention the
case of a concurrent drop.  So let's just keep the runtime check, then
drop the note, finally call it a day.
--
Michael
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: DOCS - "Get Object DDL Functions" table improvements
Next
From: Henson Choi
Date:
Subject: Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st