public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables
@ 2026-05-05 14:32  Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread

From: Álvaro Herrera @ 2026-05-05 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jim Jones <[email protected]>; +Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>; Chao Li <[email protected]>; Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>

On 2026-Mar-26, Jim Jones wrote:

> 
> On 26/03/2026 12:25, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Chao Li <[email protected]> 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)





^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables
@ 2026-05-06 06:33  Jim Jones <[email protected]>
  parent: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread

From: Jim Jones @ 2026-05-06 06:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>; +Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>; Chao Li <[email protected]>; Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>

On 05/05/2026 16:32, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.)

Fair enough.

> 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.

Yeah, since pretty much nobody complained about it, I guess it's indeed 
safer to leave it in PG19.

Thanks for pushing it!

Best, Jim







^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-05-06 06:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-05-05 14:32 Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp tables Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
2026-05-06 06:33 ` Jim Jones <[email protected]>

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox