| From: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
| Date: | 2023-01-16 16:46:04 |
| Message-ID: | 2cca954df24b106b462bc7c2259cbd83@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-16 16:50:11 | Re: The documentation for storage type 'plain' actually allows single byte header |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-01-16 16:36:43 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |