From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations |
Date: | 2017-09-25 14:32:25 |
Message-ID: | 26670.1506349945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> As long as I don't forget... Another thing currently on HEAD and
>> REL_10_STABLE is that OIDs of partitioned tables are used, but the
>> RangeVar of the parent is used for error reports. This leads to
>> incorrect reports if a partition gets away in the middle of autovacuum
>> as only information about the parent is reported to the user.
> Oh, you're right. The original RangeVar (corresponding to the table
> mentioned in the command) refers to the parent table.
Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch.
My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when handling a
table we'd identified through inheritance or pg_class-scanning, to
indicate that this wasn't a table named in the original command. This
only works conveniently if you decide that it's appropriate to silently
ignore relation_open failure on such table OIDs, but I think it is.
Not sure about whether we ought to try to fix that in v10. It's a
mostly-cosmetic problem in what ought to be an infrequent corner case,
so it might not be worth taking risks for post-RC1. OTOH, I would
not be surprised to get bug reports about it down the road.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-25 14:42:59 | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-09-25 14:24:53 | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |