Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum

From: cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>
To: surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date: 2026-07-01 07:21:06
Message-ID: tencent_69F13A0F3AEC2A42330BE56A7552D664CC09@qq.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

> 2. The silent skip in get_all_vacuum_rels produces a different user-visible
> behavior than vacuum_open_relation's WARNING for
> what's essentially the same race (concurrent drop during a database-wide
> VACUUM).
> I think the silent path is fine here, as the user didn't explicitly ask for
> that table.

I personally think it's worth a WARNING because the relation is exist when
we scan pg_class. I'm also OK if most people think the WARNING is useless.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2026-07-01 07:21:14 Re: Include sequences in publications created by pg_createsubscriber
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2026-07-01 07:19:49 Prevent crash when calling pgstat functions with unregistered stats kind