On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Julien Rouhaud > <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote: >> On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me. >>> >>> Based on your patch, I just improved the doc. For example, I added >>> the following note into the doc. >>> >>> + These functions cannot be executed during recovery. + Use >>> of these functions is restricted to superusers and the owner + >>> of the given index. >>> >>> If there is no problem, I'm thinking to commit this version. >>> >> >> Just a detail: >> >> + Note that the cleanup does not happen and the return value is 0 >> + if the argument is the GIN index built with <literal>fastupdate</> >> + option disabled because it doesn't have a pending list. >> >> It should be "if the argument is *a* GIN index" >> >> I find this sentence a little confusing, maybe rephrase like this would >> be better: >> >> - Note that the cleanup does not happen and the return value is 0 >> - if the argument is the GIN index built with <literal>fastupdate</> >> - option disabled because it doesn't have a pending list. >> + Note that if the argument is a GIN index built with >> <literal>fastupdate</> >> + option disabled, the cleanup does not happen and the return value >> is 0 >> + because the index doesn't have a pending list. >> >> Otherwise, I don't see any problem on this version. > > This is a corner case that probably does not need to be in the docs, > but I wanted to clarify it here in case you disagree: If the index > ever had fastupdate turned on, when it is turned off the index will > keep whatever pending_list it had until something cleans it up one > last time.
I agree to add that note to the doc. Or we should remove the above description that I added? 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
