Re: parallel vacuum comments

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:01 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thur, Dec 2, 2021 8:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I've attached updated patches.
> >
> > The first patch is the main patch for refactoring parallel vacuum code; removes
> > bitmap-related code and renames function names for consistency. The second
> > patch moves these parallel-related codes to vacuumparallel.c as well as
> > common functions that are used by both lazyvacuum.c and vacuumparallel.c to
> > vacuum.c. The third patch adds regression tests for parallel vacuum on
> > different kinds of indexes with multiple index scans. Please review them.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
> I reviewed the 0001 patch and didn’t find some big issues in the patch.
>
> I only have a personally suggestion for the following function name:
>
> parallel_vacuum_process_unsafe_indexes
> parallel_vacuum_index_is_parallel_safe
>
> It seems not only "unsafe" index are processed in the above functions,
> but also index which is unsuitable(based on parallel_vacuum_should_skip_index).
>

I have given one comment to remove the call to
parallel_vacuum_should_skip_index() from
parallel_vacuum_index_is_parallel_safe(). If Sawada-San follows that
then maybe your point will be addressed.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.