| From: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | 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 04:37:39 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_AD5D52285621586D53CA904C2C9EDA81BA06@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > 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.
>
> Works for me. Thanks.
Fixed.
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Do-not-check-permissions-in-get_all_vacuum_rels.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-06-29 04:41:06 | Re: Remove the refint contrib module (for v20) |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-06-29 04:37:00 | Re: Bug in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER / ... CONNECTION with broken old server |