| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? |
| Date: | 2025-03-16 12:58:17 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm2RRDdsdf5U+Cc1LJc+DrpZwfX2JEa7NTkboyo2BAN0jA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 at 08:06, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Here's a patchset that uses that approach. Naming of functions, types,
> fields and arguments TBD. The patch works and passes the new
> VACUUM-conflict tests, though I suspect the SP-GIST tests to have
> bugs, as an intermediate version of my 0003 patch didn't trigger the
> tests to fail, even though it did not hold a pin on (all) sorted
> items' data when it was being checked for visibility and/or returned
> from the scan.
>
> Patch 0001 details the important changes, while 0002/0003 use this new
> API to make GIST and SP-GIST's IOS work correctly when concurrent
> VACUUM is/was running.
> 0004 is the existing patch with tests (v8-0001).
I noticed that Mikhail's feedback from [1] is not yet addressed. I
have changed the status of the commitfest entry to Waiting on Author,
kindly address them and update the status to Needs review.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANtu0ojz0apXnVia0reTL28eL2=__ev8aLsiH=1XfD_Z3dnkTw@mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-16 13:00:23 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-16 12:55:32 | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |