Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:04:55AM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> 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.

Well, as you mentioned upthread the only test infrastructure that we
could use here is TAP, as database-wide VACUUMs could get costly when
running other tests in parallel and we need stability. But I cannot
get excited about the cost this would have versus the coverage we get.
Cycles are better spent elsewhere, even if injection points could be
leveraged here.
--
Michael