| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | cca5507(at)qq(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-06-26 02:31:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20260626.113138.288646520306266658.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:19:57 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> FWIW, even after sleeping on it, I don't think that this patch is
> going in the right direction. I am pretty sure that we should just
> lift the ACL check in get_all_vacuum_rels() and always require
> vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() to have the relation locked when
> called. This way we would rely on one single code path for the ACL
> check, even if it means holding a reference of a relation OID for
> something to be processsed later. So I would revisit the choice made
FWIW, I agree with this direction.
Regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2026-06-26 02:32:16 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2026-06-26 01:55:39 | Re: enhance wraparound warnings |