On 19 November 2015 at 14:57, Jaime Casanova
<jaime.casan...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 19 November 2015 at 14:47, Jaime Casanova
> <jaime.casan...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 19 November 2015 at 14:18, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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 capacitaciĆ³n

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to