On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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.
- if (vac_delay) - vacuum_delay_point(); + vacuum_delay_point(); If vac_delay is false, e.g., ginInsertCleanup() is called by the backend, vacuum_delay_point() should not be called. No? > I think we should backpatch this - any arguments against? +1 for backpatch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
