| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-06-25 18:04:55 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACX4Enqp7EX2Y1Z2EETaiGzsFr+CRM1PX0+giiVK6pqt7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On the test front: once the race code path is gone, the injection point with the spec file isn't strictly needed either.
> A simpler test that shows "VACUUM with a concurrent drop successfully completes without error" should suffice.
> Bharath's TAP test suggestion under src/test/modules/test_misc seems like a good fit now.
Thinking about this further, the test is NOT needed at all with this
approach because vacuum_open_relation() already protects against
concurrent drops. So, -1 for adding a new test.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-06-25 18:27:12 | Optimize UUID parse using SIMD |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2026-06-25 18:00:02 | Re: More jsonpath methods: translate, split, join |