Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxyPH-0006f9-MX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:44:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxyPH-0004Ze-6g for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:44:55 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxyNj-0001r2-La for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:43:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxyNg-0007Ph-GM for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:43:18 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8TGhDew001017; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:43:13 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Noah Misch , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations In-reply-to: References: <25023.1506107590@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170928053123.GD37725@rfd.leadboat.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:17:05 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1015.1506703393.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:43:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1016.1506703393@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > If I understand correctly, problem #1 is that get_rel_oids() can emit > a user-visible cache lookup failure message. There is a proposed patch > by Michael Paquier which appears to implement the design suggested by > Tom. I think that the normal procedure would be for Tom to commit > that change if he's happy with it. Yes, I'm happy to take responsibility for this. > 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. I think the conclusion was that this wouldn't actually happen in v10, but I will take a closer look and do something about it if it is possible. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers