Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum

From: surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date: 2026-06-24 22:58:15
Message-ID: CAOVWO5q++nEqiNSY837gySa2wjHODyMiPnMA8i3bK4JYpb_2Og@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi ChangAo,

Thank you for incorporating the changes.

I applied and tested the v3 patch, it works all good.

Both permutations (vacuum and analyze) pass and the expected output now
asserts 's1: WARNING: skipping vacuum of "foo" and' 's1: WARNING:
skipping analyze of "foo" ' respectively which looks correct.

Regarding the backpatch, I agree this is a long standing bug, the test spec
might need to change as there is no pg_maintain, but the fix itself should
apply cleanly.

Overall, the patch looks in good shape.
Thank you for working on this issue.

You can create a commitfest entry.

Regards,
Surya Poondla

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christophe Pettus 2026-06-24 22:59:27 Re: The PostgreSQL C Dialect
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2026-06-24 21:57:41 Re: Small patch to improve safety of utf8_to_unicode().