Horton

Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2017-09-29T16:36:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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

Commits

  1. Fix inadequate locking during get_rel_oids().