Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 13:56:02 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, cca5507 <cca5507@qq.com>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum
Message-ID: <ak_uwjEzB-lAwAd3@nathan>
References: <tencent_F9D483523BB0D082C2EFDA80142F192DBC07@qq.com>
 <20260615.145410.2255263073807327959.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <tencent_E642C6000FE760D72E2BD4AD30BC562E2505@qq.com>
 <ajsTKldYusgjIzKI@paquier.xyz>
 <CALj2ACV8NWt0AtBd35km0YTCu7+forTjpDm09V3HWJRfGAMhoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ajsZZlgYYPa37CIz@paquier.xyz>
 <akKjVNL9LyTexpEi@nathan>
 <akNKbT-481DqyNOP@paquier.xyz>
 <akPhEffRipH4isWF@nathan>
 <CALj2ACWNu-Jw12GeYrrtnYHtEEt1OTA0+iJc92BWCtMmp_MBbQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALj2ACWNu-Jw12GeYrrtnYHtEEt1OTA0+iJc92BWCtMmp_MBbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ak_uwjEzB-lAwAd3%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 11:49:24AM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> So I agree with using the _ext version for the ACL check when building the
> relations list for database-wide vacuum. It addresses the concurrent table
> drops issue. The v8 patch looks good to me.
> 
> Also, I don't have a strong opinion on adding the Assert(missing_ok ||
> CheckRelationOidLockedByMe(relid, AccessShareLock, true)); because the
> is_missing flag in v8 already conveys whether the caller holds the relation
> lock or not: missing_ok = true means no lock held, missing_ok = false means
> the caller holds it.

Cool, I'll address everyone's feedback and get this committed in the next
few days.

-- 
nathan