On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:51:54PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On July 23, 2018 9:50:10 PM PDT, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Oh, yes, that would be bad. My mind has slipped here. I have seen >> manual VACUUMs on system catalogs for applications using many temp >> tables... So we would want to have only VACUUM FULL being >> conditionally >> happening? The question comes then about what to do when a VACUUM FULL >> is run without a list of relations because expand_vacuum_rel() is not >> actually the only problem. Would we want to ignore system tables as >> well except if allow_system_table_mods is on? When no relation list is >> specified, get_all_vacuum_rels() builds the list of relations which >> causes vacuum_rel() to complain on try_relation_open(), so patching >> just expand_vacuum_rel() solves only half of the problem for manual >> VACUUMs. > > I think any such restriction is entirely unacceptable. FULL or not.
Well, letting any users take an exclusive lock on system catalogs at will is not acceptable either, so two possible answers would be to fail or skip such relations. The first concept applies if a relation list is given by the user, and the second if no list is given. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
