Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Greetings,

(pruned the CC list)

* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> Unless there is disagreement on the above, it seems we should apply
> >> Yura's patch (an edited version, perhaps).
> >>
> >
> > IIRC the patches that makes the cleanup scan skip has a problem
> > pointed by Peter[1], that is that we stash an XID when a btree page is
> > deleted, which is used to determine when it's finally safe to recycle
> > the page. Yura's patch doesn't have that problem?
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D1%3Dt5fcGGfarQGcAWBqaCh%2BdLMjpYCYHpEyzK8Qg6OrQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> The latest patch present on this thread does not apply
> (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c4a47caef28024ab7528946bed264058@postgrespro.ru).
> Please send a rebase. For now I am moving the patch to next CF, with
> "waiting on author".

We are now just about a week into the CF and this patch hasn't been
updated and is still in 'waiting on author' state and it sounds like it
might have a pretty serious issue based on the above comment.

Masahiko Sawada, if this patch isn't viable or requires serious rework
to be acceptable, then perhaps we should change its status to 'returned
with feedback' and you can post a new patch for the next commitfest..?

Otherwise, I'd encourage you to try and find time to post an updated
patch soon, so that it can be reviewed.

Thanks!

Stephen