Re: error_severity of brin work item

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error_severity of brin work item
Date: 2021-03-10 13:24:50
Message-ID: 5e1ef3a4-55a6-f743-d8f6-97d1a8453b46@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/1/20 5:25 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:57:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>>> Another idea is if perform_work_item() were responsible for discarding
>>> relations which disappear. Currently it does this, which is racy since it
>>> holds no lock.
>>
>> That has the property that it remains contained in autovacuum.c, but no
>> other advantages I think.
>
> It has the advantage that it moves all the try_open stuff out of brin.
>
> I started implementing this, and then realized that the try_open stuff *has* to
> be in the brin_summarize function, to handle the case that someone passes a
> non-index, since it's SQL exposed.
> So maybe we should use your LockOid patch now, and refactor in the future if we
> add additional work-item types.

Thoughts on this, Álvaro? I can see that the first version of this patch
was not ideal but the rework seems to have stalled. Since it is a bug
perhaps it would be better to get something in as Justin suggests?

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org' 2021-03-10 13:31:27 Re: libpq debug log
Previous Message David Steele 2021-03-10 13:06:16 Re: Change JOIN tutorial to focus more on explicit joins