Re: Parallel autovacuum: DROP DATABASE WITH (FORCE) fails on the parallel workers

From: shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel autovacuum: DROP DATABASE WITH (FORCE) fails on the parallel workers
Date: 2026-10-07 19:37:55
Message-ID: CAGRkXqTdNx_YBfNx0ZJ0f-osLHR+Z6-m9Ltm11mp0LDFmQ2tWw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Sawada-san,

I agree with you on both A and B, and I would keep the current approach.

For A, a parallel worker gets its roleId in InitializeSessionUserId(),
so any reset has to come after that and the window stays. It also would
not cover the bgworker case.

I did not try B. I share your concern that it changes how DROP DATABASE
FORCE treats parallel workers today, which I would not want in a
backpatch.

Thanks,
Shihao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ayoub Kazar 2026-10-07 19:53:27 Re: [PROPOSAL] Expand OR clauses in joins to UNION ALL paths
Previous Message Baji Shaik 2026-10-07 19:34:55 Re: [PATCH] Unify duplicate-option handling across utility commands