| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc review for parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2020-04-13 05:14:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JoYKBcAJ5sgvbwGFwyu1Jr6faQqa8nn8tQuuewmpXs-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:16 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Also, this part still doesn't read well:
>
> - * amvacuumcleanup to the DSM segment if it's the first time to get it?
> - * from them? because they? allocate it locally and it's possible that an
> - * index will be vacuumed by the different vacuum process at the next
>
> If you change "it" and "them" and "it" and say "*a* different", then it'll be
> ok.
>
I am not sure if I follow how exactly you want to change it but still
let me know what you think about if we change it like: "Copy the index
bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
the DSM segment if it's the first time because they allocate locally
and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by the different
vacuum process at the next time."
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2020-04-13 05:18:35 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-13 05:14:11 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |