Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-09-03 Thread Fujii Masao
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. There was also a free-standing >> >> CHECK_F

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-09-03 Thread Andres Freund
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 that I could see not be

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-09-02 Thread Fujii Masao
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 changed that one as well.

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-09-02 Thread Andres Freund
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?

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-08-12 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-08-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund 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 throttled vacuum i

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending clean up is not interruptable

2015-08-11 Thread Andres Freund
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