Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch.
> My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when handling a
> table we'd identified through inheritance or pg_class-scanning, to
> indicate that this wasn't a table named in the original command. This
> only works conveniently if you decide that it's appropriate to silently
> ignore relation_open failure on such table OIDs, but I think it is.
>
> Not sure about whether we ought to try to fix that in v10. It's a
> mostly-cosmetic problem in what ought to be an infrequent corner case,
> so it might not be worth taking risks for post-RC1. OTOH, I would
> not be surprised to get bug reports about it down the road.

Something like that looks like a good compromise for v10. I would
rather see a more complete fix with each relation name reported
correctly on HEAD though. The information provided would be useful for
users when using autovacuum when skipping a relation because no lock
could be taken on it.
--
Michael