Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
| От | Nikita Malakhov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAN-LCVP-ekqUT29=BNO4Jc8Fet7_Mgzo0dgB1n5mdBEYnG=NUw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior (Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error would require a new test.
Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a check for a vacuum
permission, I think the right way is to just skip a relation that is not suitable for vacuum.
Any thoughts or objections?
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 7:46 PM Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Nikita Malakhov писал 2023-01-16 17:26:
> Hi!
>
> Here's the patch that fixes this case, please check it out.
> The patch adds vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() check before adding
> partition relation to the vacuum list, and if permission is denied the
> relation
> is not added, so it is not passed to vacuum_rel() and there are no try
> to
> acquire the lock.
>
> Cheers!
Hi.
The patch seems to solve the issue.
Two minor questions I have:
1) should we error out if HeapTupleIsValid(part_tuple) is false?
2) comment "Check partition relations for vacuum permit" seems to be
broken in some way.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: