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 11:29:33 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHt1-+abnyNgwHS8EHmQE7==jujLx7MYVr6nh6h0NYwkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-03 12:45:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> 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?
>
> No, that's the whole point of the change, we need a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() even when called by backends. I personally think
> it's rather ugly to rely on the the one in vacuum_delay_point,
Same here.
> but Jeff
> and Tom think it's better, and I can live with that.
OK, probably I can live with that, too.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-03 11:41:37 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2015-09-03 11:20:25 | Re: BRIN INDEX value |