On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 11:09:19AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2023-03-06 10:09:24 -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:48 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > At Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:24:25 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi > > > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > > > > In any case, I think we need to avoid such concurrent > > > > autovacuum/analyze. > > > > > > If it is correct, I believe the attached fix works. > > > > Thanks for investigating this! > > > > Yes, this fix looks correct and makes sense to me. > > Wouldn't it be better to just perform the section from the ALTER TABLE till > the DROP TABLE in a transaction? Then there couldn't be any other accesses in > just that section. I'm not convinced it's good to disallow all concurrent > activity in other parts of the test.
You mean for test coverage reasons? Because the table in question only exists for a few operations in this test file. - Melanie
