| From: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-12-01 17:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | 2441851575221513@iva7-56e9317134d0.qloud-c.yandex.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
> I think I got your point. Your proposal is that it's more efficient if
> we make the leader process vacuum the index that can be processed only
> the leader process (i.e. indexes not supporting parallel index vacuum)
> while workers are processing indexes supporting parallel index vacuum,
> right? That way, we can process indexes in parallel as much as
> possible.
Right
> So maybe we can call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes first
> and then call vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker. But I'm not sure that
> there are parallel-safe remaining indexes after the leader finished
> vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker, as described on your proposal.
I meant that after processing missing indexes (not supporting parallel index vacuum), the leader can start processing indexes that support the parallel index vacuum, along with parallel workers.
Exactly call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes after start parallel workers but before vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker or something with similar effect.
If we have 0 missed indexes - parallel vacuum will run as in current implementation, with leader participation.
Sorry for my unclear english...
regards, Sergei
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-01 18:27:04 | Re: surprisingly expensive join planning query |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-12-01 17:01:12 | surprisingly expensive join planning query |