Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables
| От | Álvaro Herrera |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | afn9L0P-7ObLr0CZ@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables (Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-Mar-26, Jim Jones wrote: > > On 26/03/2026 12:25, Antonin Houska wrote: > > Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I don't think such a TAP test is necessary. > > +1 > > I've kept the tests in a separate file so the committer can easily skip > them if needed. Thanks for noticing and patching this issue. I have pushed the 0001 patch just now. I decided against pushing the other patch. Although I would have preferred to add a test, its cost seems not trivial: there are three full-database scans in it (one for each command), and that seemed a bit excessive. (There's also one extra initdb, but I'm not sure that part is too bad since we've optimized that particular part.) I also considered backpatching, since the code has been like this essentially forever (i.e. at least since pg14). However, I don't remember any complaints about this and I would hate to destabilize things for people without an excellent reason. Maybe we can reconsider after this month's minors, if somebody shows up with vehement opinions about it. Thanks again, -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Crear es tan difícil como ser libre" (Elsa Triolet)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: