Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

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/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)