| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-07-23 16:06:22 |
| Message-ID: | mtdjdjujnivwjmazea7nlfvk34ftkamd4biqn5hi2fibjzfk7z@n7rqi2vk54rj |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-07-22 11:44:29 -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Do you think it makes sense to implement the above idea that we launch
> parallel vacuum workers for heap through the same vacuumparallel.c
> codebase and maintain the consistent interface with parallel index
> vacuuming APIs?
Yes, that might make sense. But wiring it up via tableam doesn't make sense.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-23 16:14:54 | Re: Error with DEFAULT VALUE in temp table |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-07-23 16:00:55 | Re: Custom pgstat support performance regression for simple queries |