Message-ID: <b9424fce-2699-4ae0-92bc-016446c8bdad@uni-muenster.de>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 08:33:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, and REPACK block on other sessions' temp
 tables
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
 Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <afn9L0P-7ObLr0CZ@alvherre.pgsql>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
From: Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: <afn9L0P-7ObLr0CZ@alvherre.pgsql>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b9424fce-2699-4ae0-92bc-016446c8bdad%40uni-muenster.de>
Precedence: bulk

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