| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Date: | 2021-04-06 00:27:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20210406002749.hgbqo5ewzh3anrqm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-04-05 17:18:37 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 5:09 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > Oh yeah. "static BufferAccessStrategy vac_strategy" is guaranteed to
> > be initialized to 0, simply because it's static and global. That
> > explains it.
>
> So do we need to allocate a strategy in workers now, or leave things
> as they are/were?
> I'm going to go ahead with pushing my commit to do that now, just to
> get the buildfarm green. It's still a bug in Postgres 13, albeit a
> less serious one than I first suspected.
Feels like a v13 bug to me, one that should be fixed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-04-06 00:41:21 | Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-06 00:18:37 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |