Re: error_severity of brin work item

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error_severity of brin work item
Date: 2020-11-30 23:47:32
Message-ID: 20201130234732.GA12534@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The more I look at this, the less I like it. This would set a precedent
that any action that can be initiated from an autovac work-item has a
requirement of silently being discarded when it referenced a
non-existant relation.

I'd rather have the code that drops the index go through the list of
work-items and delete those that reference that relation.

I'm not sure if this is something that ought to be done in index_drop();
One objection might be that if the drop is rolled back, the work-items
are lost. It's the easiest, though; and work-items are supposed to be
lossy anyway, and vacuum would fix the lack of summarization eventually.
So, not pretty, but not all that bad. (Hopefully rolled-back drops are
not all that common.)

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2020-12-01 00:00:26 Consider parallel for lateral subqueries with limit
Previous Message David Steele 2020-11-30 23:38:07 Re: Online verification of checksums