To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements 
In-reply-to: <487A6E0C.3090600@sigaev.ru> 
References: <483FD205.4090904@sigaev.ru> <486BC501.6060605@sigaev.ru>
	<27880.1215810535@sss.pgh.pa.us> <487A6E0C.3090600@sigaev.ru>
Comments: In-reply-to Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
	message dated "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:05:16 +0400"
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:03:25 -0400
Message-ID: <29437.1216742605@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> Updated: http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/fast_insert_gin-0.9.gz
> I still havn't clearness of acceptability for suggested aminsertcleanup  calling.

I started to look at this.  I don't understand why VACUUM does an insert
cleanup before starting to vacuum, but VACUUM FULL doesn't?

I don't particularly like the idea of adding aminsertcleanup calls
immediately before other AM operations such as ambulkdelete.  It seems
to me that those operations ought to include the cleanup subroutine
themselves, if they need it; they shouldn't depend on callers to get
this right.  Offhand it looks to me like the only new index AM call
needed is the one at vacuum startup, which tempts me to propose that
the new AM entry point should be called "amvacuumstartup", instead of
wiring in the assumption that what it's for is specifically cleanup
of insertions.

Comments?  I can make the change if you think it's okay --- I'm busy
cleaning up docs and comments at the moment.

			regards, tom lane