From: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
Date: | 2023-01-19 07:34:38 |
Message-ID: | CAN-LCVNzvhhvfkQX3oOk9zAms3_LUxS+R_Fd+HT_8mx4rZ8O3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
I've found the discussion you'd mentioned before, checking now.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:49 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error
> would
> > require a new test.
> > Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a check
> > for a vacuum
> > permission, I think the right way is to just skip a relation that is not
> > suitable for vacuum.
> > Any thoughts or objections?
>
> Could you check if this is consistent between the behavior of VACUUM
> FULL and CLUSTER ? See also Nathan's patches.
>
> --
> Justin
>
--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.ru/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Pyhalov | 2023-01-19 07:37:27 | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
Previous Message | Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) | 2023-01-19 07:12:14 | RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |