| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
| Date: | 2023-01-19 01:49:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20230119014915.GA13860@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> 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?
Could you check if this is consistent between the behavior of VACUUM
FULL and CLUSTER ? See also Nathan's patches.
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-01-19 01:54:27 | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2023-01-19 01:49:14 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |