From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: error_severity of brin work item |
Date: | 2020-11-30 23:47:32 |
Message-ID: | 20201130234732.GA12534@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The more I look at this, the less I like it. This would set a precedent
that any action that can be initiated from an autovac work-item has a
requirement of silently being discarded when it referenced a
non-existant relation.
I'd rather have the code that drops the index go through the list of
work-items and delete those that reference that relation.
I'm not sure if this is something that ought to be done in index_drop();
One objection might be that if the drop is rolled back, the work-items
are lost. It's the easiest, though; and work-items are supposed to be
lossy anyway, and vacuum would fix the lack of summarization eventually.
So, not pretty, but not all that bad. (Hopefully rolled-back drops are
not all that common.)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Coleman | 2020-12-01 00:00:26 | Consider parallel for lateral subqueries with limit |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2020-11-30 23:38:07 | Re: Online verification of checksums |