| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, michael <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2026-06-27 19:32:42 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACVHYbaVnMx6KFSjh3BtHAG2tUWX1G9hhM87TCVJWe_nig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 1:19 AM cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Do you mind sharing the vacuum-related fix where we have agreement in
> > this thread? Thank you!
>
> Please see the v5 patch.
LGTM.
+ *
+ * Note: the relation must be locked to prevent a concurrent drop.
*/
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.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-06-27 19:56:04 | Re: Do not lock tables in get_tables_to_repack |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-06-27 18:04:22 | Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis |