Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]

From: Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Lentfer <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Subject: Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]
Date: 2014-06-26 09:35:28
Message-ID: 4205E661176A124FAF891E0A6BA91352663368C2@szxeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 25 June 2014 23:37 Sawada Masahiko Wrote

>I got following FAILED when I patched v3 to HEAD.

>$ patch -d. -p1 < ../patch/vacuumdb_parallel_v3.patch
>patching file doc/src/sgml/ref/vacuumdb.sgml
>Hunk #1 succeeded at 224 (offset 20 lines).
>patching file src/bin/scripts/Makefile
>Hunk #2 succeeded at 65 with fuzz 2 (offset -1 lines).
>patching file src/bin/scripts/vac_parallel.c
>patching file src/bin/scripts/vac_parallel.h
>patching file src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c
>Hunk #3 succeeded at 61 with fuzz 2.
>Hunk #4 succeeded at 87 (offset 2 lines).
>Hunk #5 succeeded at 143 (offset 2 lines).
>Hunk #6 succeeded at 158 (offset 5 lines).
>Hunk #7 succeeded at 214 with fuzz 2 (offset 5 lines).
>Hunk #8 FAILED at 223.
>Hunk #9 succeeded at 374 with fuzz 1 (offset 35 lines).
>Hunk #10 FAILED at 360.
>Hunk #11 FAILED at 387.
>3 out of 11 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c.rej

Thank you for giving your time, Please review the updated patch attached in the mail.

1. Rebased the patch

2. Implemented parallel execution for new option --analyze-in-stages

Regards,
Dilip Kumar

Attachment Content-Type Size
vacuumdb_parallel_v4.patch application/octet-stream 48.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-06-26 09:38:47 Re: pgsql: Do all-visible handling in lazy_vacuum_page() outside its critic
Previous Message David Rowley 2014-06-26 09:31:34 Re: Allowing NOT IN to use ANTI joins