| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] ginInsertCleanup called from vacuum could still miss tuples to be deleted |
| Date: | 2017-11-16 20:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWsGCmgaPTvG2WnFqncoqv5+Dr8sR_xC63uVf0D7Wwgg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed, that's better. Attached updated patch.
> Also I've added this to the next CF so as not to forget.
Committed and back-patched. While I'm fairly sure this is a correct
fix, post-commit review from someone who knows GIN better than I do
would be a great idea.
I am also clear on what the consequences of this bug are. It seems
like it could harm insert performance by making us wait when we
shouldn't, but can it cause corruption? That I'm not sure about. If
there's already a cleanup of the pending list in progress, how do
things go wrong?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-11-16 20:34:50 | Re: [HACKERS] ginInsertCleanup called from vacuum could still miss tuples to be deleted |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-16 20:27:59 | Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters |