Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index
Date
Msg-id 5461DE60.30106@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
(2014/11/11 2:31), Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> The patch looks good to me except for the following point:

>> *** a/src/backend/access/gin/ginfast.c
>> --- b/src/backend/access/gin/ginfast.c
>> ***************
>> *** 25,30 ****
>> --- 25,32 ----
>>    #include "utils/memutils.h"
>>    #include "utils/rel.h"
>>
>> + /* GUC parameter */
>> + int                   pending_list_cleanup_size = 0;
>>
>> I think we need to initialize the GUC to boot_val, 4096 in this case.
>
> No, IIUC basically the variable for GUC doesn't need to be initialized
> to its default value. OTOH, it's also harmless to initialize it to the default.
> I like the current code a bit because we don't need to change the initial
> value again when we decide to change the default value of GUC.
> I have no strong opinion about this, though.

OK, so if there are no objections of others, I'll mark this as "Ready 
for Committer".

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw behaves oddly
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: pg_prewarm really needs some CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS