| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DataChecksumsStateStruct cost_delay fields and locking |
| Date: | 2026-06-17 18:12:42 |
| Message-ID: | d7da8e54-367e-4da6-9f5e-b0c9288be1ef@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/06/2026 16:04, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> All comments addressed in the attached.
Thanks, LGTM.
> @@ -1533,9 +1532,13 @@ DataChecksumsWorkerMain(Datum arg)
> /*
> * Get a list of all temp tables present as we start in this database. We
> * need to wait until they are all gone until we are done, since we cannot
> - * access these relations and modify them.
> + * access these relations and modify them. For the list of relations to
> + * process once the temp relations are gone, check if shared catalogs have
> + * been processed already.
> */
> InitialTempTableList = BuildRelationList(true, false);
> + LWLockAcquire(DataChecksumsWorkerLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
> + process_shared = DataChecksumState->process_shared_catalogs;
>
> /*
> * Enable vacuum cost delay, if any. While this process isn't doing any
Not new with this patch, but caught my eye now: the double "until" in
the phrase "We need to wait until they are all gone until we are done"
sounds a little awkward. I had to read it a few times to parse it right.
I'd suggest "We need to wait until they are all gone before we exit" or
something like that.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2026-06-17 18:19:20 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-06-17 17:47:04 | Re: fix prev link in docs |