Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1KvBrg063M6p2nkVzq=OBwezxTG84=TzkYgSujvH0fsGw@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 Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 6:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since the previous version patch conflicts with current HEAD, I've
> attached the updated version patches.
>
Review comments:
------------------------------
Sawada-San, are you planning to work on the review comments? I can take care of this and then proceed with further review if you are tied up with something else.
*
+/*
+ * DSM keys for parallel lazy vacuum. Unlike other parallel execution code,
+ * since we don't need to worry about DSM keys conflicting with plan_node_id
+ * we can use small integers.
+ */
+#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_SHARED 1
+#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_DEAD_TUPLES 2
+#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_QUERY_TEXT 3
I think it would be better if these keys should be assigned numbers in
a way we do for other similar operation like create index. See below
defines
in code:
/* Magic numbers for parallel state sharing */
#define PARALLEL_KEY_BTREE_SHARED UINT64CONST(0xA000000000000001)
This will make the code consistent with other parallel operations.
I think we don't need to handle this comment. Today, I read the other emails in the thread and noticed that you have done this based on comment by Robert and that decision seems wise to me.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: