Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 at 23:23, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 at 22:46, Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 17:14, Matthias van de Meent
> > <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Attached is v10, which polishes the previous patches, and adds a patch
> > > for nbtree to use the new visibility checking strategy so that it too
> > > can release its index pages much earlier, and adds a similar
> > > visibility check test to nbtree.
> >
> > And here's v12. v11 (skipped) would've been a rebase, but after
> > finishing the rebase I noticed a severe regression in btree's IOS with
> > the new code, so v12 here applies some optimizations which reduce the
> > overhead of the new code.
>
> Here's v13, which moves the changes around a bit:

CFBot reported failures, which appeared to be due to an oversight in
patch 0001, where visibilitymap_get_status was missing a static
modifier to accompany its inline nature.

Apart from that fix v14 is identical to v13.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent