On 9/29/17, 11:18 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think I understand problem #2. I think the concern is about
> reporting the proper relation name when VACUUM cascades from a
> partitioned table to its children and then some kind of concurrent DDL
> happens, but I don't see a clear explanation on the thread as to what
> exactly the failure scenario is, and I didn't see a problem in some
> simple tests I just ran. Furthermore, it sounds like this might get
> fixed as part of committing the patch to allow VACUUM to mention
> multiple tables, which Tom has indicated he will handle.
Yes. It looks like v10 is safe, and the vacuum-multiple-relations
patch should help prevent any future logging issues caused by this.
Discussion here: http://postgr.es/m/CAB7nPqRX1465FP%2Bameysxxt63tCQDDW6KvaTPMfkSxaT1TFGfw%40mail.gmail.com
Nathan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers