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

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/26/17, 1:38 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I've left this as-is for now. I considered emitting this statement as a
> LOG for autovacuum, but I'm not sure there is terribly much value in
> having autovacuum explain that it is skipping a relation because it was
> concurrently dropped. Perhaps this is something we should emit at a
> DEBUG level. What do you think?

DEBUG would be fine as well for me. Now that your patch provides a
RangeVar consistently for all code paths, the message could show up
unconditionally.
--
Michael