Here's a v22. Beyond a rebase, the only real difference is some cleanup
in the test cases.
On 9/26/17, 1:38 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/17, 12:42 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> + if (!IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
>> + ereport(WARNING,
>> + (errmsg("skipping \"%s\" --- relation no longer exists",
>> + relation->relname)));
>> I like the use of WARNING here, but we could use as well a LOG to be
>> consistent when a lock obtention is skipped.
>
> It looks like the LOG statement is only emitted for autovacuum, so maybe
> we should keep this at WARNING for consistency with the permission checks
> below it.
I've left this as-is for now. I considered emitting this statement as a
LOG for autovacuum, but I'm not sure there is terribly much value in
having autovacuum explain that it is skipping a relation because it was
concurrently dropped. Perhaps this is something we should emit at a
DEBUG level. What do you think?
Nathan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
