On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>> <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
>>> On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>>>> <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> All looks fine to me, I flag it as ready for committer.
>>
>> When I compiled the PostgreSQL with the patch, I got the following error.
>> ISTM that the inclusion of pg_am.h header file is missing in ginfast.c.
>
> Thanks. Fixed.
>
>> gin_clean_pending_list() must check whether the server is in recovery or not.
>> If it's in recovery, the function must exit with an error. That is, IMO,
>> something like the following check must be added.
>>
>> if (RecoveryInProgress())
>> ereport(ERROR,
>>
>> (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>> errmsg("recovery is in progress"),
>> errhint("GIN pending list cannot be
>> cleaned up during recovery.")));
>>
>> It's better to make gin_clean_pending_list() check whether the target index
>> is temporary index of other sessions or not, like pgstatginindex() does.
>
> I've added both of these checks. Sorry I overlooked your early email
> in this thread about those.
>
>>
>> + Relation indexRel = index_open(indexoid, AccessShareLock);
>>
>> ISTM that AccessShareLock is not safe when updating the pending list and
>> GIN index main structure. Probaby we should use RowExclusiveLock?
>
> Other callers of the ginInsertCleanup function also do so while
> holding only the AccessShareLock on the index. It turns out that
> there is a bug around this, as discussed in "Potential GIN vacuum bug"
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU=1xALfLhUUohFP5v33RzedLVb5aknNUjcEuM9KNBKrB6-Q@mail.gmail.com)
>
> But, that bug has to be solved at a deeper level than this patch.
>
> I've also cleaned up some other conflicts, and chose a more suitable
> OID for the new catalog function.
>
> The number of new header includes needed to implement this makes me
> wonder if I put this code in the correct file, but I don't see a
> better location for it.
>
> New version attached.
Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
Based on your patch, I just improved the doc. For example,
I added the following note into the doc.
+ These functions cannot be executed during recovery.
+ Use of these functions is restricted to superusers and the owner
+ of the given index.
If there is no problem, I'm thinking to commit this version.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
