> On 21 Jul 2026, at 15:02, Paul Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The attached patch adds a single vacuum_delay_point(false) at the top of
> the loop, where no buffer lock is held, matching the sibling idiom. The
> function has lacked the call since it was introduced in 7df159a620b.
Yup, this looks like an oversight.
>
> This is long-standing rather than a recent regression, so I'll leave the
> question of back-patching to a committer. Note that on branches before
> 18 vacuum_delay_point() takes no argument (the bool was added by
> e5b0b0ce150), so a back-patch would drop the "false".
I don't know whether we should back-patch this. But I think the decision
should be aligned with the similar one in your GIN thread [0].
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/178447127453.110.12276981925360691905%40mail.gmail.com
