From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | RE: parallel vacuum comments |
Date: | 2021-11-16 02:38:29 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB5716B45FDB5BBD5422884C0994999@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thur, Nov 11, 2021 10:41 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've attached a draft patch that refactors parallel vacuum and separates
> parallel-vacuum-related code to new file vacuumparallel.c.
> After discussion, I'll divide the patch into logical chunks.
Hi.
I noticed few minor issues in the patch.
1)
+ /*
+ * Parallel unsafe indexes can be processed only by leader (these are
+ * processed in lazy_serial_process_indexes() by leader.
+ */
It seems the function name in the comments should be serial_vacuum_unsafe_indexes
2)
+ stats->parallel_workers_can_process =
+ index_parallel_vacuum_is_safe(pvc->indrels[i],
+ pvc->num_index_scans,
+ bulkdel);
The function index_parallel_vacuum_is_safe also return false for the
index < min_parallel_index_scan_size cutoff which seems parallel safe. So,
maybe we can rename the function to xxx_worker_can_process() ?
Best regards,
Hou zj
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-11-16 02:42:57 | Re: Anything I can contribute? |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-11-16 02:38:03 | Re: support for MERGE |