On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch. >> My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when handling a >> table we'd identified through inheritance or pg_class-scanning, to >> indicate that this wasn't a table named in the original command. This >> only works conveniently if you decide that it's appropriate to silently >> ignore relation_open failure on such table OIDs, but I think it is. >> >> Not sure about whether we ought to try to fix that in v10. It's a >> mostly-cosmetic problem in what ought to be an infrequent corner case, >> so it might not be worth taking risks for post-RC1. OTOH, I would >> not be surprised to get bug reports about it down the road. > > Something like that looks like a good compromise for v10. I would > rather see a more complete fix with each relation name reported > correctly on HEAD though. The information provided would be useful for > users when using autovacuum when skipping a relation because no lock > could be taken on it.
Actually, perhaps this should be tracked as an open item? A simple fix is leading to the path that no information is better than misleading information in this case. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
