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 throttled vacuum it does
>> nothing else. (That is how ANALYZE handles it.)
> Hm, I find that not exactly pretty. I'd rather just add an unconditional
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to the function.
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is very cheap. But I tend to agree that you should
be using vacuum_delay_point.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
