On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:15 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:21 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > - Imo it's pretty confusing to have functions like > > lazy_parallel_vacuum_indexes() (in 13, renamed in 14) that "Perform index > > vacuum or index cleanup with parallel workers.", based on > > lps->lvshared->for_cleanup. > > Okay. We need to set lps->lvshared->for_cleanup to tell worker do > either index vacuum or index cleanup. So it might be better to pass > for_cleanup flag down to the functions in addition to setting > lps->lvshared->for_cleanup. >
But, we need this information in the parallel worker as well to know whether to perform index vacuum or clean up, so I guess we need this information in shared memory, no? > > > > > > - I don't like some of the new names introduced in 14. E.g. > > "do_parallel_processing" is way too generic. > > I listed the function names that probably needs to be renamed from > that perspecti: > > * do_parallel_processing > * do_serial_processing_for_unsafe_indexes > * parallel_process_one_index > > Is there any other function that should be renamed? > > > > - On a higher level, a lot of this actually doesn't seem to belong into > > vacuumlazy.c, but should be somewhere more generic. Pretty much none of > > this > > code is heap specific. And vacuumlazy.c is large enough without the > > parallel > > code. > > I don't come with an idea to make them more generic. Could you > elaborate on that? > Can we think of moving parallelism-related code to a different file (say vacuumparallel.c)? At least that will reduce the footprint of vacuumlazy.c. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
