| From: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 13:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAN-LCVOFd=1Nv3cTq9-uL=+GMpmLxTCvbbV=x4CRdRJNSKL=4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
Yes, I've checked that. What would be desirable behavior in the case above?
Anyway, waiting for table unlock seems to be not quite right.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 4:12 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:18:08AM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> > Is it intended? Why don't we perform vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation()
> > check for inheritors in expand_vacuum_rel()?
>
> Since no lock is held on the partition, the calls to functions like
> object_ownercheck() and pg_class_aclcheck() in
> vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() will produce cache lookup ERRORs if the
> relation is concurrently dropped.
>
> --
> Nathan Bossart
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimos Stamatakis | 2023-01-26 13:10:36 | Re: pg_upgrade from PG-14.5 to PG-15.1 failing due to non-existing function |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2023-01-26 13:00:04 | Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on |