Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum

From: cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Date: 2026-06-24 03:21:46
Message-ID: tencent_A9783A07FA7681A107850AB5A929C5320808@qq.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Michael,

> I'd sure welcome Nathan and Jeff opinions (added now in CC) regarding
> this line of thoughts; they worked on MAINTAIN, even if the early
> relation ACL check when building a list of relations for a
> database-wide manual VACUUM predates that.

It seems that the original permission check in get_all_vacuum_rels() is added
by you in commit a556549d7e6dce15fe216bd4130ea64239f4d83f.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitrii Bondar 2026-06-24 03:26:14 Re: Pgbench: remove synchronous prepare
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2026-06-24 03:09:49 Re: IGNORE/RESPECT NULLS can be specified for (prokind == 'f').