| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2026-06-29 00:13:35 |
| Message-ID: | akG4r-_eRtZ5pMGe@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:32:42PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> 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.
An assertion is impossible to miss, acts as self-documentation and it
is not a performance critical path. A note at the top of the function
could be easily missed. I don't see why the note needs to mention the
case of a concurrent drop. So let's just keep the runtime check, then
drop the note, finally call it a day.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henson Choi | 2026-06-29 00:25:51 | Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2026-06-28 23:01:07 | Re: DOCS - "Get Object DDL Functions" table improvements |