On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, I can take care of this before committing. The v9-0001* looks > good to me as well, so, I am planning to commit that tomorrow unless I > see more comments or any objection to that.
I would like to thank both Masahiko and yourself for working on this. It's important. > There is still pending > work related to moving parallel vacuum code to a separate file and a > few other pending comments that are still under discussion. We can > take care of those in subsequent patches. Do, let me know if you or > others think differently? I'm +1 on moving it into a new file. I think that that division makes perfect sense. It will make the design of parallel VACUUM easier to understand. I believe that index vacuuming (whether or not it involves parallel workers) ought to be a more or less distinct operation to heap vacuuming. With a distinct autovacuum schedule (well, the schedule would be related, but still distinct). -- Peter Geoghegan
