Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Nikita Malakhov
Тема Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior
Дата
Msg-id CAN-LCVP-ekqUT29=BNO4Jc8Fet7_Mgzo0dgB1n5mdBEYnG=NUw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior  (Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>)
Ответы Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior  (Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>)
Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
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?

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 7:46 PM Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Nikita Malakhov писал 2023-01-16 17:26:
> Hi!
>
> Here's the patch that fixes this case, please check it out.
> The patch adds vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() check before adding
> partition relation to the vacuum list, and if permission is denied the
> relation
> is not added, so it is not passed to vacuum_rel() and there are no try
> to
> acquire the lock.
>
> Cheers!

Hi.

The patch seems to solve the issue.
Two minor questions I have:
1) should we error out if HeapTupleIsValid(part_tuple) is false?
2) comment "Check partition relations for vacuum permit" seems to be
broken in some way.

--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional


--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Make EXPLAIN generate a generic plan for a parameterized query
Следующее
От: "Karl O. Pinc"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page