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

Here's a v22. Beyond a rebase, the only real difference is some cleanup
in the test cases.

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?

Nathan