Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The point would be to not disable interrupts till after doing the FSM
>> vacuuming.  Ignoring CANCEL for longer than we must is bad.
> 
> Oh, I see.  I guess the answer is that it depends on what happens if you
> interrupt after vacuuming the FSM.  I have no idea what that is supposed
> to accomplish so I'm of no help here.  FreeSpaceMapVacuum says it's
> about fixing inconsistencies in the FSM, so I'm guessing that it's not
> critical.

Yeah, interrupting FreeSpaceMapVacuum (or right after it) is harmless.

> FWIW I notice that RelationTruncate contains an outdated comment at the
> top about the 'fsm' function argument which is nowadays no longer an
> argument.

Thanks, fixed.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: Order of operations in lazy_vacuum_rel at 2010-02-08 19:19:17 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2010-02-08 20:05:17
	Subject: Re: [CFReview] Red-Black Tree
Previous:	From: Florian Weimer	Date: 2010-02-08 19:50:37
	Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers