On 2015-09-03 12:45:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing
> >> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-03 12:45:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> >> Attached patch does it that way.
On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a
> vacuum_delay_point, so I changed that one as well.
I think we should backpatch this - any arguments against?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a
>> vacuum_delay_point, so I
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-11 15:07:15 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
The attached patch adds an else branch to call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
But I think we could instead just call vacuum_delay_point
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.
The attached patch adds an else branch
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
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-11 15:07:15 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
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