From: Paul Kim <mok03127@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: aekorotkov@gmail.com,
	michael@paquier.xyz,
	x4mmm@yandex-team.ru,
	Paul Kim <mok03127@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Restore vacuum_delay_point() in GIN posting-tree leaf vacuum
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:26:35 +0900
Message-ID: <20260723022635.21756-1-mok03127@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPpHfdtoMnMPSksdjWx8tsM0RCXSpmYLQGYF+rzbK00Tf-q6HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <178447127453.110.12276981925360691905@mail.gmail.com>
 <al3LFmvcsdBF_Gqn@paquier.xyz>
 <33B92CF3-4BD1-40C0-91AA-D7F96D136730@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAPpHfduJUVWWP707tfxuV6vDwFe-wWyDE6+dxnrbp6VtwbgnWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <61A36DCE-E555-4409-83E6-7232417F0B97@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAPpHfdtoMnMPSksdjWx8tsM0RCXSpmYLQGYF+rzbK00Tf-q6HQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20260723022635.21756-1-mok03127%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-07-22, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Please, check the patch attached.

Thanks, Alexander. The patch looks good to me -- it's the same change
I posted upthread, and the placement is right: the call sits after the
page has been unlocked and released, so no buffer content lock (nor any
other LWLock) is held across the delay, matching the sibling loops in
ginbulkdelete() and ginvacuumcleanup(). The added comment reads well.

One note for the back-branches, since it's marked Backpatch-through:
14: vacuum_delay_point() only gained its bool argument in e5b0b0ce150
(v18), so on 14-17 the call would need to be the no-argument
vacuum_delay_point().

--
Paul Kim