Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
Date: 2023-01-21 01:12:35
Message-ID: 20230121011235.GA10739@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:18:08AM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> Is it intended? Why don't we perform vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation()
> check for inheritors in expand_vacuum_rel()?

Since no lock is held on the partition, the calls to functions like
object_ownercheck() and pg_class_aclcheck() in
vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() will produce cache lookup ERRORs if the
relation is concurrently dropped.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-01-21 01:12:37 libpqrcv_connect() leaks PGconn
Previous Message Ted Yu 2023-01-21 01:03:43 Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs