Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+fd4k5aJjZq42rs1MJwww0XSWd1ZFvQfezkNMRm2p4mzaWUMA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:57, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 4:10 PM Mahendra Singh <mahi6run@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 13:32, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 19:21, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for the re-based patches. > >> > > >> > On the top of v35 patch, I can see one compilation warning. > >> >> > >> >> parallel.c: In function ‘LaunchParallelWorkers’: > >> >> parallel.c:502:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > >> >> int i; > >> >> ^ > >> > > >> > > >> > Above warning is due to one extra semicolon added at the end of declaration line in v35-0003 patch. Please fix thisin next version. > >> > + int nworkers_to_launch = Min(nworkers, pcxt->nworkers);; > >> > >> Thanks. I will fix it in the next version patch. > >> > >> > > >> > I will continue my testing on the top of v35 patch set and will post results. > > > > > > While reviewing v35 patch set and doing testing, I found that if we disable leader participation, then we are launching1 less parallel worker than total number of indexes. (I am using max_parallel_workers = 20, max_parallel_maintenance_workers= 20) > > > > For example: If table have 3 indexes and we gave 6 parallel vacuum degree(leader participation is disabled), then I think,we should launch 3 parallel workers but we are launching 2 workers due to below check. > > + nworkers = lps->nindexes_parallel_bulkdel - 1; > > + > > + /* Cap by the worker we computed at the beginning of parallel lazy vacuum */ > > + nworkers = Min(nworkers, lps->pcxt->nworkers); > > > > Please let me know your thoughts for this. Thanks! > I think it is probably because this part of the code doesn't consider > PARALLEL_VACUUM_DISABLE_LEADER_PARTICIPATION. I think if we want we > can change it but I am slightly nervous about the code complexity this > will bring but maybe that is fine. Right. I'll try to change so that. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: