On 2015-08-11 15:07:15 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > When a user backend (as opposed to vacuum or autoanalyze) gets burdened > with cleaning up the GIN pending list, it does not > call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). > > Since cleaning does a lot of random IO, it can take a long time and it is > not nice to be uninterruptable.
Agreed. > The attached patch adds an else branch to call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). > > But I think we could instead just call vacuum_delay_point unconditionally. > It calls CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and if not in a throttled vacuum it does > nothing else. (That is how ANALYZE handles it.) Hm, I find that not exactly pretty. I'd rather just add an unconditional CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to the function. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
