| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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> |
| Subject: | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Date: | 2021-04-06 00:18:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=gf6FXW-jPVRdeCZk0QjhduCqH_XD3QbES9wPmhircuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-06 00:27:49 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Previous Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-06 00:13:57 | RE: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |