| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-07-09 18:56:02 |
| Message-ID: | ak_uwjEzB-lAwAd3@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 11:49:24AM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> So I agree with using the _ext version for the ACL check when building the
> relations list for database-wide vacuum. It addresses the concurrent table
> drops issue. The v8 patch looks good to me.
>
> Also, I don't have a strong opinion on adding the Assert(missing_ok ||
> CheckRelationOidLockedByMe(relid, AccessShareLock, true)); because the
> is_missing flag in v8 already conveys whether the caller holds the relation
> lock or not: missing_ok = true means no lock held, missing_ok = false means
> the caller holds it.
Cool, I'll address everyone's feedback and get this committed in the next
few days.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Khoa Nguyen | 2026-07-09 18:58:05 | Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-07-09 18:49:24 | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |