On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund <andres@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?
> I think we should backpatch this - any arguments against?
+1 for backpatch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao