| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, suryapoondla4 <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-06-29 00:28:00 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACUrT2XG1SYUnV3S5dZSdT=893Rpfzqc4dGCtwx8MHskFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 5:13 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:32:42PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > I would have considered adding an
> > Assert(CheckRelationOidLockedByMe(relid, AccessShareLock, true))
> > instead of the note, but that seems like overkill to me. So, I'm fine
> > without it.
>
> An assertion is impossible to miss, acts as self-documentation and it
> is not a performance critical path. A note at the top of the function
> could be easily missed. I don't see why the note needs to mention the
> case of a concurrent drop. So let's just keep the runtime check, then
> drop the note, finally call it a day.
Works for me. Thanks.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-06-29 00:31:36 | Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope |
| Previous Message | Henson Choi | 2026-06-29 00:25:51 | Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st |