| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN pending clean up is not interruptable |
| Date: | 2015-09-03 03:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGSJEUy3Gbbs+hxkjHETEJe-Avoen-rN=5SFMzNKU9KqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a
>> vacuum_delay_point, so I changed that one as well.
- if (vac_delay)
- vacuum_delay_point();
+ vacuum_delay_point();
If vac_delay is false, e.g., ginInsertCleanup() is called by the backend,
vacuum_delay_point() should not be called. No?
> I think we should backpatch this - any arguments against?
+1 for backpatch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2015-09-03 04:28:40 | Re: WIP: Make timestamptz_out less slow. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-09-03 03:02:34 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |