Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Um ... so? With Nathan's proposed behavior, there are two cases depending
>> on just when the unexpected schema change happens:
>> 1. *None* of the work gets done.
>> 2. The work before the troublesome relation gets done, and the work after
>> doesn't.
> You may be missing one which is closer to what autovacuum does:
> 3) Issue a warning for the troublesome relation, and get the work done
> a maximum.
Well, we could certainly discuss whether the behavior on detecting a
conflict ought to be "error" or "warning and continue". But I do not buy
the value of "it might be one or the other depending on timing".
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
