On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Jim Jones wrote: > On 26/10/2026 05:44, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Okay, I'm sold over this set of suggestions on HEAD to improve the > > user experience. I doubt that this is worth worrying about on stable > > branches due to the lack of reports.. > > +1 > I also don't think it is worth the trouble. Besides the fact that it's > mostly a cosmetic improvement, it's not like anybody has been > complaining too loud about it in the past years :)
I have a question here. Is there a reason why you do not check after pg_visibility_map() and pg_visibility_map_summary()? pgstatapprox.c also does lookups based on block numbers and you are proposing to block temp and unlogged relations there. For the visibility maps, I doubt that it makes sense to have them return incorrect results during recovery. Here this means vm_readbuf() returning an invalid buffer. That feels confusing to me vs the choice of an error. Another point may be in introducing RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP() in pg_visibility. It also seems strange to not fail in this case, doesn't it? We would just grab incorrect data if trying to fetch VM information from a temp relation owned by a different session. Rather than copy-pasting the same check N times, you could just group them in a shared routine and reduce the duplication. For pg_visibility, this could be embedded in check_relation_relkind(), perhaps.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
