| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch) |
| Date: | 2020-04-01 12:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-v4yCXPxoa6KLdisZwxSaifULMzUBx1nOn+weFqKRs3PQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. I've attached the updated patch.
> > >
> > > Thank you for testing, Dilip!
> >
> > Thanks! One hunk is failing on the latest head. And, I have rebased
> > the patch for my testing so posting the same. I have done some more
> > testing to test multi-pass vacuum.
> >
>
> The patch looks good to me. I have done a few minor modifications (a)
> moved the declaration of variable closer to where it is used, (b)
> changed a comment, (c) ran pgindent. I have also done some additional
> testing with more number of indexes and found that vacuum and parallel
> vacuum used the same number of total_read_blks and that is what is
> expected here.
>
> Let me know what you think of the attached?
The patch looks fine to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicola Contu | 2020-04-01 12:51:07 | |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-04-01 12:09:24 | Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters |