| From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables |
| Date: | 2026-05-06 06:33:29 |
| Message-ID: | b9424fce-2699-4ae0-92bc-016446c8bdad@uni-muenster.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/05/2026 16:32, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I decided against pushing the other patch. Although I would have
> preferred to add a test, its cost seems not trivial: there are three
> full-database scans in it (one for each command), and that seemed a bit
> excessive. (There's also one extra initdb, but I'm not sure that part
> is too bad since we've optimized that particular part.)
Fair enough.
> I also considered backpatching, since the code has been like this
> essentially forever (i.e. at least since pg14). However, I don't
> remember any complaints about this and I would hate to destabilize
> things for people without an excellent reason. Maybe we can reconsider
> after this month's minors, if somebody shows up with vehement opinions
> about it.
Yeah, since pretty much nobody complained about it, I guess it's indeed
safer to leave it in PG19.
Thanks for pushing it!
Best, Jim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhongpu Chen | 2026-05-06 06:34:46 | Re: Proposal: tighten validation for legacy EUC encodings or document that accepted byte sequences may be unconvertible to UTF8 |
| Previous Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-05-06 06:23:38 | Re: [PATCH] Clean up property graph error messages |