Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Should I go ahead and restore builds on catalogs, and remove those
>> comments, on the assumption that your patch will be committed before
>> mine? Obviously parallel index builds on catalogs don't matter. OTOH,
>> why not? Perhaps it's like the debate around HOT that took place over
>> 10 years ago, where Tom insisted that HOT work with catalogs on
>> general principle.
>
> Yes, I think so. If you (or someone else) can review that patch, I'll
> go ahead and commit it, and then your patch can treat it as a solved
> problem. I'm not really worried about the cycles; the amount of
> effort required here is surely very small compared to all of the other
> things that have to be done when starting a parallel worker.

Review of your patch:

* SerializedReindexState could use some comments. At least a one liner
stating its basic purpose.

* The "System index reindexing support" comment block could do with a
passing acknowledgement of the fact that this is serialized for
parallel workers.

* Maybe the "Serialize reindex state" comment within
InitializeParallelDSM() should instead say something like "Serialize
indexes-pending-reindex state".

Other than that, looks good to me. It's a simple patch with a clear purpose.

--
Peter Geoghegan