| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Call lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe earlier for parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2022-12-22 08:35:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoD=KwtYdWytQdd2XuQf7nyfho2yxUmkMEmnJ4Nv5ScMYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:28 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, it's a little inconsistent.
>
> Yes, this should be corrected by calling the failsafe
> inside the parallel vacuum loops and handling the case by exiting
> the loop and parallel vacuum if failsafe kicks in.
I agree it's better to be consistent but I think we cannot simply call
lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe() inside the parallel vacuum loops.
IIUC the failsafe is heap (or lazyvacuum ) specific, whereas parallel
vacuum is a common infrastructure to do index vacuum in parallel. We
should not break this design. For example, we would need to have a
callback for index scan loop so that the caller (i.e. lazy vacuum) can
do its work.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-12-22 08:49:29 | Re: Call lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe earlier for parallel vacuum |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-12-22 08:25:40 | Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding |