Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM?

From:	Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:	Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc:	Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, 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:	2025-02-08 13:46:00
Message-ID:	CANtu0ohD0C4KjC46DN+gj5BhPW66fWRa7XvwVHDc-qWfxOhxjg@mail.gmail.com
Views:	Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:	2021-11-03 23:33:08 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>  2021-11-04 15:52:22 from Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> 📎   2021-11-04 15:58:29 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>    2021-11-05 10:26:09 from Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>     2021-12-01 01:09:14 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> 📎      2021-12-01 01:39:19 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>      2021-12-09 01:40:37 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>  2024-12-03 01:18:14 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> 📎   2024-12-03 16:21:04 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>    2025-01-04 01:00:34 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎     2025-01-06 23:45:18 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎      2025-01-09 21:00:03 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>       2025-01-09 21:35:17 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>        2025-01-10 01:09:42 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>         2025-01-10 17:06:10 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎          2025-02-05 10:04:00 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎           2025-02-05 10:11:40 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎            2025-02-08 13:46:00 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎             2025-02-28 01:53:19 from Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>              2025-03-05 09:04:25 from Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>               2025-03-05 18:19:06 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>                2025-03-08 02:36:31 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎                 2025-03-09 12:44:00 from Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>                 2025-03-16 12:58:17 from vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>                  2025-03-21 16:14:12 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎                   2025-04-24 20:46:10 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎                    2025-12-22 22:23:05 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎                     2025-12-24 11:54:48 from Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> 📎
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

Attachment	Content-Type	Size
v8-0002-Fix-index-only-scan-race-condition-in-GiST-implem.patch	application/octet-stream	10.9 KB
v8-0003-Improve-buffer-handling-for-killed-items-in-GiST-.patch	application/octet-stream	3.0 KB
v8-0004-Fix-index-only-scan-race-condition-in-SP-GiST-imp.patch	application/octet-stream	10.9 KB
v8-0001-Tests-for-index-only-scan-race-condition-with-con.patch	application/octet-stream	12.1 KB

In response to

• Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? at 2025-02-05 10:11:40 from Michail Nikolaev

Responses

• Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? at 2025-02-28 01:53:19 from Peter Geoghegan

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Tomas Vondra	2025-02-08 13:50:57	Re: Showing applied extended statistics in explain Part 2
Previous Message	Pavel Stehule	2025-02-08 11:28:34	Re: proposal - plpgsql - support standard syntax for named arguments for cursors