On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 03:35, Pavel Stehule
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu:
here is a patch (with small regress test)
An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running
instead of
function, procedure or anonymous block ?
Maybe out of some kind of correctness, but it seems less useful to me
since the obvious question an end user would ask after trying to run
VACUUM in a function is if they can do so in a procedure instead so we
may as well tell them right away.
A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a
HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any
transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.
Andreas
