On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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,
Same here. > but Jeff > and Tom think it's better, and I can live with that. OK, probably I can live with that, too. 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
