Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

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