Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

From: Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date: 2020-01-27 20:43:14
Message-ID: CAKYtNArCYT1pMi0Z2GZ+7K7rbO06ji27drHxUCK18boVKKZr1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 12:11, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
> > > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached the updated version patch.
> > >
> > > Thanks Sawada-san for the re-based patch.
> > >
> > > I reviewed and tested this patch. Patch looks good to me.
> >
> > As offline, suggested by Amit Kapila, I verified vacuumdb "-P" option
> > functionality with older versions(<13) and also I tested vacuumdb by
> > giving "-j" option with "-P". All are working as per expectation and I
> > didn't find any issue with these options.
> >
>
> I have made few modifications in the patch.
>
> 1. I think we should try to block the usage of 'full' and 'parallel'
> option in the utility rather than allowing the server to return an
> error.
> 2. It is better to handle 'P' option in getopt_long in the order of
> its declaration in long_options array.
> 3. Added an Assert for server version while handling of parallel option.
> 4. Added a few sentences in the documentation.
>
> What do you guys think of the attached?
>

I took one more review round. Below are some review comments:

1.
-P, --parallel=PARALLEL_DEGREE do parallel vacuum

I think, "do parallel vacuum" should be modified. Without specifying -P, we
are still doing parallel vacuum so we can use like "degree for parallel
vacuum"

2. Error message inconsistent for FULL and parallel option:
*Error for normal vacuum:*
ERROR: cannot specify both FULL and PARALLEL options

*Error for vacuumdb:*
error: cannot use the "parallel" option when performing full

I think, both the places, we should use 2nd error message as it is giving
more clarity.

--
Thanks and Regards
Mahendra Singh Thalor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-01-27 21:06:27 Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers
Previous Message David Zhang 2020-01-27 20:41:00 Re: Making psql error out on output failures