On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
> > >wrote:
> > >> All things
> > >> considered, I'm not sure which is better.
> > >
> > >Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete
> > >the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers,
> > >then it would be better.
> >
> > Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale.
> >
>
> makes sense. I think we can write a patch for it and prepare the
> parallel vacuum patch on top of it. Once the parallel vacuum is in a
> committable shape, we can commit the gist-index related patch first
> followed by parallel vacuum patch.
+1
I can write a patch for the same.
> > Hopefully, multi-pass vacuums are rare in practice. And we should lift the current 1 GB limit on the dead TID
array,replacing it with something more compact and expandable, to make multi-pass vacuums even more rare. So I don't
thinkwe need to jump through many hoops to optimize the multi-pass case.
> >
>
> Yeah, that will be a good improvement.
+1
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com