| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations |
| Date: | 2017-09-29 16:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3B217097-1AA2-44BB-92F6-7F21E5362911@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/29/17, 11:18 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think I understand problem #2. I think the concern is about
> reporting the proper relation name when VACUUM cascades from a
> partitioned table to its children and then some kind of concurrent DDL
> happens, but I don't see a clear explanation on the thread as to what
> exactly the failure scenario is, and I didn't see a problem in some
> simple tests I just ran. Furthermore, it sounds like this might get
> fixed as part of committing the patch to allow VACUUM to mention
> multiple tables, which Tom has indicated he will handle.
Yes. It looks like v10 is safe, and the vacuum-multiple-relations
patch should help prevent any future logging issues caused by this.
Discussion here: http://postgr.es/m/CAB7nPqRX1465FP%2Bameysxxt63tCQDDW6KvaTPMfkSxaT1TFGfw%40mail.gmail.com
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-09-29 16:39:43 | Re: pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-29 16:28:20 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |