| 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 04:58:51 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_ADEC9C42E70B236A9B521665B2F1380E3409@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> > > > 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.
Remove some outdated comments in v7.
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v7-0001-Do-not-check-permissions-in-get_all_vacuum_rels.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | surya poondla | 2026-06-29 05:01:07 | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-06-29 04:56:11 | Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision |