On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch.
>>> My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when handling a
>>> table we'd identified through inheritance or pg_class-scanning, to
>>> indicate that this wasn't a table named in the original command. This
>>> only works conveniently if you decide that it's appropriate to silently
>>> ignore relation_open failure on such table OIDs, but I think it is.
>>>
>>> Not sure about whether we ought to try to fix that in v10. It's a
>>> mostly-cosmetic problem in what ought to be an infrequent corner case,
>>> so it might not be worth taking risks for post-RC1. OTOH, I would
>>> not be surprised to get bug reports about it down the road.
>>
>> Something like that looks like a good compromise for v10. I would
>> rather see a more complete fix with each relation name reported
>> correctly on HEAD though. The information provided would be useful for
>> users when using autovacuum when skipping a relation because no lock
>> could be taken on it.
>
> Actually, perhaps this should be tracked as an open item? A simple fix
> is leading to the path that no information is better than misleading
> information in this case.
+1.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers