Hi, On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 8:56 AM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-Aug-04, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > > repack_is_permitted_for_relation() uses pg_class_aclcheck_ext() to > > silently skip a concurrently-dropped relation. That's wrong for a > > caller that may already hold a lock on the relation whose ACL is > > checked, where missing a relation is not fine, and it makes the > > single-relation REPACK cases more brittle > > (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/akPhEffRipH4isWF@nathan). So > > only detect a missing relation where that's expected, following the > > fix for vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() in commit 824d5f6. > > That makes sense. I think "missing OK" is a bit weird as an argument > here though; I prefer it as "already locked", inverting the boolean. > What do you think of this formulation?
Thanks. That works for me. The v3 patch LGTM. pgindent, make check, and make check-world are all good. -- Bharath Rupireddy Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
