| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel vacuum comments |
| Date: | 2021-12-15 03:01:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Ke17+vYKErPN3MJ=z04CEDb+tLzCuVKe8ot56K8XaqPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:23 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks, I can take care of this before committing. The v9-0001* looks
> > good to me as well, so, I am planning to commit that tomorrow unless I
> > see more comments or any objection to that.
>
> I would like to thank both Masahiko and yourself for working on this.
> It's important.
>
> > There is still pending
> > work related to moving parallel vacuum code to a separate file and a
> > few other pending comments that are still under discussion. We can
> > take care of those in subsequent patches. Do, let me know if you or
> > others think differently?
>
> I'm +1 on moving it into a new file. I think that that division makes
> perfect sense. It will make the design of parallel VACUUM easier to
> understand.
>
Agreed and thanks for your support.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-12-15 03:01:57 | Re: Is it worth adding ReplicationSlot active_pid to ReplicationSlotPersistentData? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-12-15 02:53:12 | Re: parallel vacuum comments |