| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul Kim <mok03127(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v1] Add vacuum_delay_point() to GiST empty-page deletion pass |
| Date: | 2026-07-21 12:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | E247CECB-A817-44AF-9761-D801CDC14BEE@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 21 Jul 2026, at 15:02, Paul Kim <mok03127(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The attached patch adds a single vacuum_delay_point(false) at the top of
> the loop, where no buffer lock is held, matching the sibling idiom. The
> function has lacked the call since it was introduced in 7df159a620b.
Yup, this looks like an oversight.
>
> This is long-standing rather than a recent regression, so I'll leave the
> question of back-patching to a committer. Note that on branches before
> 18 vacuum_delay_point() takes no argument (the bool was added by
> e5b0b0ce150), so a back-patch would drop the "false".
I don't know whether we should back-patch this. But I think the decision
should be aligned with the similar one in your GIN thread [0].
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/178447127453.110.12276981925360691905%40mail.gmail.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-07-21 12:24:13 | Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2026-07-21 12:05:51 | Re: ri_Fast* crash w/ nullable UNIQUE constraint |