Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJGNTeNkgbU0iUDmN-_A-D+hbZk56P5S6uUQS0mdGirJxmw2qw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL (Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 November 2015 at 14:57, Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 19 November 2015 at 14:47, Jaime Casanova > <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 19 November 2015 at 14:18, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>> Jeff Janes wrote: >>>> > I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list. >>>> > It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages >>>> > deleted. >>>> >>>> I just noticed that your patch uses AccessShareLock on the index. Is >>>> that okay? I would have assumed that you'd need ShareUpdateExclusive >>>> (same as vacuum uses), but I don't really know. Was that a carefully >>>> thought-out choice? >>> >>> After reading gitPendingCleanup it becomes clear that there's no need >>> for a stronger lock than what you've chosen. Jaime Casanova just >>> pointed this out to me. >>> >> >> But it should do some checks, no? >> - only superusers? >> - what i received as parameter is a GIN index? >> > > I just notice this: > > + ginInsertCleanup(&ginstate, true, &stats); > > ginInsertCleanup() now has four parameters, so you should update the call > Btw, this is not in the commitfest and seems like a useful thing to have -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: