On 2015-09-03 12:45:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > 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?
No, that's the whole point of the change, we need a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() even when called by backends. I personally think it's rather ugly to rely on the the one in vacuum_delay_point, but Jeff and Tom think it's better, and I can live with that. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers