Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Based on your patch, I just improved the doc. For example, I added
>>> the following note into the doc.
>>>
>>> + These functions cannot be executed during recovery. + Use
>>> of these functions is restricted to superusers and the owner +
>>> of the given index.
>>>
>>> If there is no problem, I'm thinking to commit this version.
>>>
>>
>> Just a detail:
>>
>> + Note that the cleanup does not happen and the return value is 0
>> + if the argument is the GIN index built with <literal>fastupdate</>
>> + option disabled because it doesn't have a pending list.
>>
>> It should be "if the argument is *a* GIN index"
>>
>> I find this sentence a little confusing, maybe rephrase like this would
>> be better:
>>
>> - Note that the cleanup does not happen and the return value is 0
>> - if the argument is the GIN index built with <literal>fastupdate</>
>> - option disabled because it doesn't have a pending list.
>> + Note that if the argument is a GIN index built with
>> <literal>fastupdate</>
>> + option disabled, the cleanup does not happen and the return value
>> is 0
>> + because the index doesn't have a pending list.
>>
>> Otherwise, I don't see any problem on this version.
>
> This is a corner case that probably does not need to be in the docs,
> but I wanted to clarify it here in case you disagree: If the index
> ever had fastupdate turned on, when it is turned off the index will
> keep whatever pending_list it had until something cleans it up one
> last time.

I agree to add that note to the doc. Or we should remove the above
description that I added?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao