Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From cca5507
Subject Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date
Msg-id tencent_69F13A0F3AEC2A42330BE56A7552D664CC09@qq.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,

> 2. The silent skip in get_all_vacuum_rels produces a different user-visible
> behavior than vacuum_open_relation's WARNING for
> what's essentially the same race (concurrent drop during a database-wide
> VACUUM).
> I think the silent path is fine here, as the user didn't explicitly ask for
> that table.

I personally think it's worth a WARNING because the relation is exist when
we scan pg_class. I'm also OK if most people think the WARNING is useless.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Prevent crash when calling pgstat functions with unregistered stats kind
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Include sequences in publications created by pg_createsubscriber