Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior

Justin Pryzby писал 2023-01-19 04:49:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error 
>> would
>> require a new test.
>> Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a 
>> check
>> for a vacuum
>> permission, I think the right way is to just skip a relation that is 
>> not
>> suitable for vacuum.
>> Any thoughts or objections?
> 
> Could you check if this is consistent between the behavior of VACUUM
> FULL and CLUSTER ?  See also Nathan's patches.

Hi.

Cluster behaves in a different way - it errors out immediately if 
relation is not owned by user. For partitioned rel it would anyway raise 
error later.
VACUUM and VACUUM FULL behave consistently after applying Nikita's patch 
(for partitioned and regular tables) - issue warning "skipping 
TABLE_NAME --- only table or database owner can vacuum it" and return 
success status.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional