Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date: 2019-11-22 09:19:06
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KtA7vFm+C_R-KF1z38inNnnJWx57bobUPBcrZRm9cSGw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the latest version patch set. The patch set includes all
> discussed points regarding index AM options as well as shared cost
> balance. Also I added some test cases used all types of index AM.
>

I have reviewed the first patch and made a number of modifications
that include adding/modifying comments, made some corrections and
modifications in the documentation. You can find my changes in
v33-0001-delta-amit.patch. See, if those look okay to you, if so,
please include those in the next version of the patch. I am attaching
both your version of patch and delta changes by me.

One comment on v33-0002-Add-parallel-option-to-VACUUM-command:

+ /* Estimate size for shared information -- PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_SHARED */
+ est_shared = MAXALIGN(add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN
(nindexes)));
..
+ shared->offset = add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN(nindexes));

Here, don't you need to do MAXALIGN to set offset as we are computing
it that way while estimating shared memory? If not, then probably,
some comments are required to explain it.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
v33-0001-Add-index-AM-field-and-callback-for-parallel-ind.patch application/octet-stream 14.9 KB
v33-0001-delta-amit.patch application/octet-stream 5.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-11-22 09:41:41 Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Previous Message Juan José Santamaría Flecha 2019-11-22 08:55:46 Re: TAP tests aren't using the magic words for Windows file access