Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands

On 9/25/17, 12:42 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> +       if (!IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
> +           ereport(WARNING,
> +                 (errmsg("skipping \"%s\" --- relation no longer exists",
> +                         relation->relname)));
> I like the use of WARNING here, but we could use as well a LOG to be
> consistent when a lock obtention is skipped.

It looks like the LOG statement is only emitted for autovacuum, so maybe
we should keep this at WARNING for consistency with the permission checks
below it.

> +            * going to commit this transaction and begin a new one between now
> +            * and then.
> +            */
> +           relid = RangeVarGetRelid(relinfo->relation, NoLock, false);
> We will likely have to wait that the matters discussed in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25023.1506107590@sss.pgh.pa.us
> are settled.

Makes sense.

> +VACUUM FULL vactst, vactst, vactst, vactst;
> This is actually a waste of cycles.

I'll clean this up in v22.

Nathan


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers