On 2026-07-21, Michael Paquier wrote: > I'd argue that this does not feel like a backpatch is strictly > required here. It took somebody 7 years to notice the gap [...]
Thanks, Michael -- and thanks, Andrey, for confirming the oversight. Andrey, on aligning this with the GIN thread [0]: I think GiST is actually a bit different. The GIN one is a regression -- the call was there until fd83c83d094 dropped it in a deadlock fix -- so to me it reads as a back-branch matter, given that on master your proposed rework would replace that path and carry its own vacuum_delay_point(). This GiST pass, by contrast, has never had the call since 7df159a620b introduced the two-pass deletion in 2019, and there's no comparable rework in flight -- so it looks like a standalone master fix rather than a back-patch. I don't have a strong view either way, but master-only seems the natural fit for GiST; I'll leave the final call to you, Heikki, and Andrey. [0] https://postgr.es/m/[email protected] -- Paul Kim
