Hi Kevin,
On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 12:58 AM Kevin Rocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> ginInsertCleanup() calls vacuum_delay_point while still holding a lock on
> the current pending-list page, so the delay runs with interrupts held off.
>
> This is the same problem 2d7f6947293 fixed in btbulkdelete() back in 2006,
> and it's related to 8a045f760f6 which went in last week.
>
> The patch keeps the other vacuum_delay_point() calls that exist after the
> buffer is released, in both the flush branch and the main branch at the end
> of the loop.
>
> I haven't seen this hang directly and this is my first contribution, so
> I'd appreciate a second opinion on anything. The issue exists in multiple
> supported branches, but should be easy to backpatch (happy to help with
> that).
>
> The issue was surfaced by Opus, I've verified the logic against those two
> commits myself.
>
> - Kevin Rocker
>
Thanks for the patch. The analysis looks correct to me. But one thought:
Would it be better to move the call just after
LockBuffer(buffer, GIN_UNLOCK);
rather than remove it? The following comment explicitly notes that moving
the collected data can take significant time. Placing the call after the
unlock would allow a pending cancellation to be handled before that work,
while preserving the existing cost-delay point.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it may be worth considering.
Best regards,
--
Ze Chen (Neil)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
