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_AD5D52285621586D53CA904C2C9EDA81BA06@qq.com
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
> > > 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.
>
> Works for me. Thanks.

Fixed.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER / ... CONNECTION with broken old server
Next
From: Ayush Tiwari
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove the refint contrib module (for v20)