| From: | Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(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>, 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: | 2025-03-09 12:44:00 |
| Message-ID: | CANtu0ojz0apXnVia0reTL28eL2=__ev8aLsiH=1XfD_Z3dnkTw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Mathias!
> 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
It all fails on master - could you please detail what is "intermediate" in
that case? Also, I think it is a good idea to add the same type of test to
btree.
> * XXX: In the future we should probably reorder these operations so
> * we can apply the checks in block order, rather than index order.
I think it is already done in your patch, no?
Should we when use that mechanics for btree as well? It seems to be
straight forward and non-invasive. In such case, "Unchecked" goes away, and
it is each AM responsibility to call the check while holding the pin.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-03-09 13:35:34 | Re: Commitfest app release on Feb 17 with many improvements |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-03-09 12:13:52 | Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses |