Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I see the no-index case now:
> > >
> > > + if (nindexes)
> > > + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
> > > + else
> > > + LockBufferForCleanup(buf);
> > >
> > > Let's see what Greg says, or revert.
> >
> > Hm, that's a good point. I could return it to the original method where it
> > released the share lock and did he LockBufferForCleanup only if necessary. I
> > thought it was awkward to acquire a lock then release it to acquire a
> > different lock on the same buffer but it's true that it doesn't always have to
> > acquire the second lock.
>
> This rush to apply patches just because no one seems to be capable of
> keeping up with them not being reviewed, is starting to get a bit
> worrisome.

When things are placed in the patches queue, I need to get feedback if
there is a problem with them. I am not sure what other process we can
follow, unless we just keep patches there indefinitely, or just ignore
them and never place them in the queue.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +