Hello, Antonin! On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 8:39 PM Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote: > > --- > > > SpinLockAcquire(&shared->mutex); > > > valid = shared->sfs_valid; > > > SpinLockRelease(&shared->mutex); > > > > Better to remember last_exported here to avoid any races/misses. > > What races/misses exactly?
Just as some way to reduce a number of potential scenarios/states between parallel actors. > > --- > > > bool done; > > > > bool exit_after_lsn_upto? > > Not sure. I think it should be named in some way to signal it is a request, not a report. > > Also, should we add some kind of back pressure between building > > indexes/new heap and num of WAL we have? > > But probably it is out of scope of the patch. > > Do you mean that the decoding worker should be less active if the amount of > WAL doesn't grow too fast? In the previous version (without background) we have some kind of back-pressure during the scan part (if we have too muchWAL delayed because of us - we process it). But it is not more true with a background worker. At the same time - it never was during the index building phase... Best regards, Mikhail.
