Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:41 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:22 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> >
> > On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> > >wrote:
> > >> All things
> > >> considered, I'm not sure which is better.
> > >
> > >Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete
> > >the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers,
> > >then it would be better.
> >
> > Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale.
>
> Are we planning to do this only if it is called from parallel vacuum
> workers or in general?
>

I think we can do it in general as adding some check for parallel
vacuum there will look bit hackish. It is not clear if we get enough
benefit by keeping it for cleanup phase of the index as discussed in
emails above. Heikki, others, let us know if you don't agree here.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com