On 3/5/18, 7:08 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2018-03-05 19:57:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >>> One wrinkle in that plan is that it'd not be trivial to discern whether >>> a lock couldn't be acquired or whether the object vanished. I don't >>> really have good idea how to tackle that yet. >> Do we really care which case applies? > > I think there might be cases where we do. As expand_vacuum_rel() > wouldn't use missing_ok = true, it'd not be an issue for this specific > callsite though.
I think it might be enough to simply note the ambiguity of returning InvalidOid when skip-locked and missing-ok are both specified. Even if RangeVarGetRelidExtended() did return whether skip-locked or missing-ok applied, such a caller would likely not be able to trust it anyway, as no lock would be held. Nathan
