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_ADEC9C42E70B236A9B521665B2F1380E3409@qq.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum  ("cca5507" <cca5507@qq.com>)
Responses Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

> > > > 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.

Remove some outdated comments in v7.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision
Next
From: Haibo Yan
Date:
Subject: Re: implement CAST(expr AS type FORMAT 'template')