Re: [HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

2017-09-28 Thread Amit Langote
Thanks Michael for working on this. On 2017/09/27 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been looking more closely at the problem in $subject, that I > have mentioned a couple of times, like here: >

Re: [HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

2017-09-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > In conclusion, I think that the open item of $subject should be > removed from the list, and we should try to get the multi-VACUUM patch > in to cover any future problems. I'll do so if there are no >

Re: [HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

2017-09-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 9/26/17, 9:28 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: >> In conclusion, I think that the open item of $subject should be >> removed from the list, and we should try to get the multi-VACUUM patch >>

Re: [HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

2017-09-27 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 9/26/17, 9:28 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > In conclusion, I think that the open item of $subject should be > removed from the list, and we should try to get the multi-VACUUM patch > in to cover any future problems. I'll do so if there are no > objections. If

[HACKERS] Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum

2017-09-26 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, I have been looking more closely at the problem in $subject, that I have mentioned a couple of times, like here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqqa37oune_rjzpmwc4exqalx9f27-ma_-rsfl_3mj+...@mail.gmail.com As of HEAD, the RangeVar defined in calls of vacuum() is used for