Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hm. The other per-sample-row loops in analyze.c use vacuum_delay_point()
>> rather than CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() directly. Ordinarily that wouldn't
>> make much difference here, but maybe a slow index function might be
>> incurring I/O?
> That isn't the case for me (and if it were, they wouldn't be going through
> the buffer manager anyway and so would not trigger delay criteria), but
> that seems like a valid concern in general. It also explains why I
> couldn't find CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in other loops of that file, because I
> was looking for the wrong spelling.
> Adding a vacuum_delay_point does solve the immediately observed problem,
> both the toy one and the more realistic one.
Committed, thanks.
regards, tom lane