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