Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:41 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:22 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> All things
> > > >> considered, I'm not sure which is better.
> > > >
> > > >Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete
> > > >the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers,
> > > >then it would be better.
> > >
> > > Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale.
> >
> > Are we planning to do this only if it is called from parallel vacuum
> > workers or in general?
> >
>
> I think we can do it in general as adding some check for parallel
> vacuum there will look bit hackish.
I agree with that point.
It is not clear if we get enough
> benefit by keeping it for cleanup phase of the index as discussed in
> emails above. Heikki, others, let us know if you don't agree here.

I have prepared a first version of the patch. Currently, I am
performing an empty page deletion for all the cases.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com