RE: parallel vacuum comments
От | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: parallel vacuum comments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB5716C876CA90EF85A160879294679@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parallel vacuum comments (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: parallel vacuum comments
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 11:38 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe we can start with using parallel_vacuum_*. We can change them > later if there is an argument. > > I've attached an updated patch. I don't update the terminology in > vacuum that we're discussing on another thread[1]. Hi, I noticed the patch no longer applies on the latest source. And few comments. 1) +static void set_parallel_vacuum_index_status(ParallelVacuumState *pvs, + bool bulkdel, + int num_index_scans); +static void parallel_vacuum_all_indexes(ParallelVacuumState *pvs, bool bulkdel, + int num_index_scans); ... +static bool index_can_participate_parallel_vacuum(Relation indrel, + int num_index_scans); Maybe the parameter num_index_scans can be replaced by a bool flag since it is only used in the check "num_index_scans > 0" and "num_index_scans == 0". 2) + /* Reinitialize the parallel context to relaunch parallel workers */ + if (!pvs->first_time) It seems the ParallelVacuumState::first_time was not initialized before ? Best regards Hou zj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: