Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:35 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
<mahi6run@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Below are some review comments for v50 patch.
>
> 1.
> +LVShared
> +LVSharedIndStats
> +LVParallelState
>  LWLock
>
> I think, LVParallelState should come before LVSharedIndStats.
>
> 2.
> +    /*
> +     * It is possible that parallel context is initialized with fewer workers
> +     * then the number of indexes that need a separate worker in the current
> +     * phase, so we need to consider it.  See compute_parallel_vacuum_workers.
> +     */
>
> This comment is confusing me. I think, "then" should be replaced with "than".
>

Pushed, after fixing these two comments.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com