Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands
Date: 2017-09-26 18:38:53
Message-ID: 5E276707-8F46-478B-9505-F71C8A2634D8@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/25/17, 12:42 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + if (!IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
> + ereport(WARNING,
> + (errmsg("skipping \"%s\" --- relation no longer exists",
> + relation->relname)));
> I like the use of WARNING here, but we could use as well a LOG to be
> consistent when a lock obtention is skipped.

It looks like the LOG statement is only emitted for autovacuum, so maybe
we should keep this at WARNING for consistency with the permission checks
below it.

> + * going to commit this transaction and begin a new one between now
> + * and then.
> + */
> + relid = RangeVarGetRelid(relinfo->relation, NoLock, false);
> We will likely have to wait that the matters discussed in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25023.1506107590@sss.pgh.pa.us
> are settled.

Makes sense.

> +VACUUM FULL vactst, vactst, vactst, vactst;
> This is actually a waste of cycles.

I'll clean this up in v22.

Nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2017-09-26 18:59:42 v10 pg_ctl compatibility
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-26 18:37:46 Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?