| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, cca5507(at)qq(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-07-02 06:03:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20260702.150349.672440168192810994.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
At Wed, 1 Jul 2026 08:35:12 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> > 3. The Assert that Bharath suggested earlier doesn't apply as-is but can be
> > incorporated into the patch as:
> > Assert(missing_ok || CheckRelationOidLockedByMe(relid, AccessShareLock,
> > true));
>
> This fail-safe would be a welcome addition, yes. Perhaps Nathan feels
> differently, which would be also fine by me.
To me, this Assert seems worthwhile as part of the function's contract.
Regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | solai v | 2026-07-02 06:11:47 | Re: Allow ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE to return EXCLUDED values |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2026-07-02 06:03:39 | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |