Hi! Yes, I've checked that. What would be desirable behavior in the case above? Anyway, waiting for table unlock seems to be not quite right.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 4:12 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:18:08AM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: > > Is it intended? Why don't we perform vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() > > check for inheritors in expand_vacuum_rel()? > > Since no lock is held on the partition, the calls to functions like > object_ownercheck() and pg_class_aclcheck() in > vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() will produce cache lookup ERRORs if the > relation is concurrently dropped. > > -- > Nathan Bossart > Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com > > > -- Regards, Nikita Malakhov Postgres Professional https://postgrespro.ru/
